DART+ (DART Expansion)

DWCommuter

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You need but search this thread Bill. The original interconnector ( surfacing Heuston) would have shared a bottleneck 3 (then 2) tracks from Heuston to Park West. This was ridiculous.

After CIE correctly ( if belatedly and after lots of abuse here and in other fora) replanned the tunnel to surface further west in Inchicore there was still a glaringly missing bit of quad track Inchicore - Park West.

CIE genuinely hoped nobody would notice this glaring omission and that they could get their railway order anyway and their occasional bitches on here used to be very very cross at me for noticing. It would and will affect some back gardens in Joe Duffy central...and that is unavoidable as I pointed out.

So the "Missing Link" became "KRP2" .....bit late but nevertheless it finally appeared out of the planning department.

There is no point in DU unless express and local trains are completely separated and that requires 4 tracks all the way. Course the same logic applies north of Connolly/Fairview as far as Clongriffin at least once the north bound traffic exits the tunnel.

Doing KRP2 first as an enabling work for DU, not as a fag end add on afterwards, would:

a) be cheap , really it is a small bit of land acqusition ( if any) and raising/widening 2 bridges...one in Kylemore road.
b) mean that tunneling traffic and spoil would be separated from trains coming to and from Heuston if DU ever went ahead.
c) presently they plan to truck the spoil through the East Wall, a lot of that could be trained out west instead to fill a bog somewhere.

and it would mean in the short term that there are minimum 3 tracks ex Heuston instead of the current 3 then 2 then 4 configuration.

Doing the northern line as Quad track (from Fairview - Clongriffin) would have the same effect if it were brought forward. Then the 2 tracks peeled off into the tunnel are separated and usable as spoil lines and equipment movers during tunneling without affecting other services that must express through the slow commuter trains.

On the scale of the overall DU project which was a €4bn ish integrated vision thing those two 'Quad to the Portals' projects would make perfect sense early on and would have immediate benefits even if the tunnel never happened.

Sadly all the money has been stolen by bankers, consultants lawyers and accountants in South Dublin under the pretext of saving their banks (again). We bailed all these cnuts out in the 1980s as well with their ICI scam which money could better have been spent on vital Roads or Dart to Malahide instead.

There ya go.

Calm the fcuk down Sponge Bob. You are not alone and never were. All that you have said above is absolutely correct. I remember standing in the remnants of the "Brasserie" in Heuston station looking at the "plans" for the KRP. (the irony of the location and its "new" use didn't escape me either.) But I diverse. Anyway, upon looking at the plans our group quickly realised that a grey area existed between the proposed interconnector and the start of the KRP. It was bad enough that IE were planning to bring the interconnector above ground in the Guinness sidings, but when we fast forward to their revised plan to bring it up in Inchicore, we think it's solved until we look at the "gap" between there and the KRP. (as you have pointed out)

KRP2 is a glaring example of a company not actually having a firm grasp on what they are doing and I'd go as far as saying that it stinks of a very poor semi state still making sh1t up as they go along, based on the historic relationship between CIE and Government. Both fear and distrust each other, but successive Governments have left this to fester. A monster was created and left to morph into a semi-dependent rather that a semi state. It will never deliver anything close to a railway that we can be proud of, no matter how much money is thrown at it. Ultimately successive Governments are responsible and only they can change it.

Sponge Bob

DWCommuter wrote: »

Calm the fcuk down Sponge Bob. You are not alone and never were.

I was only giving out to Wild Bill..that because he deserved it. I often give out to Wild Bill for all the good it does long term.

Sooner or later I will blame him for that 1970's plan to convert the canals in Dublin into Motorways and I will surely give out to him for it in the interests of consistency.

DWCommuter wrote: »

KRP2 is a glaring example of a company not actually having a firm grasp on what they are doing and I'd go as far as saying that it stinks of a very poor semi state still making sh1t up as they go along.

That is exactly what it was and exactly why I wouldn't give them a penny when an Express Bus will get me there quicker. DU changed as people told CIE their plans were bull****. I am sure you did it personally in Heuston but I avoid Dublin as much as possible me.

Wild Bill

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I was only giving out to Wild Bill..that because he deserved it. I often give out to Wild Bill for all the good it does long term.

Sooner or later I will blame him for that 1970's plan to convert the canals in Dublin into Motorways and I will surely give out to him for it in the interests of consistency.

Yeah, motorising the canals was another lost opportunity. Exactly what the phuk is their current value in terms of transport infrastructure? Eh? Do I hear ZERO?

As was the failure to turn Temple Bar into a Grand Central Bus Station.

The dosh for all rail projects has now disappeared.

It seems buses are all the rage now with all the little "40-billion-for-Anglo-ok; but-let's-endlessly-debate-every-one-million-for-Project-X" minds.

Ok, I may not be serious about the canals..... :cool:

Judgement Day

DWCommuter wrote: »

Calm the fcuk down Sponge Bob. You are not alone and never were. All that you have said above is absolutely correct. I remember standing in the remnants of the "Brasserie" in Heuston station looking at the "plans" for the KRP. (the irony of the location and its "new" use didn't escape me either.) But I diverse. Anyway, upon looking at the plans our group quickly realised that a grey area existed between the proposed interconnector and the start of the KRP. It was bad enough that IE were planning to bring the interconnector above ground in the Guinness sidings, but when we fast forward to their revised plan to bring it up in Inchicore, we think it's solved until we look at the "gap" between there and the KRP. (as you have pointed out)

KRP2 is a glaring example of a company not actually having a firm grasp on what they are doing and I'd go as far as saying that it stinks of a very poor semi state still making sh1t up as they go along, based on the historic relationship between CIE and Government. Both fear and distrust each other, but successive Governments have left this to fester. A monster was created and left to morph into a semi-dependent rather that a semi state. It will never deliver anything close to a railway that we can be proud of, no matter how much money is thrown at it. Ultimately successive Governments are responsible and only they can change it.

Ah the "Brasserie" - I have fond memories of it even further back when it was a restaurant and a well kept secret reserved for senior management and their pals. The best of dining with silver service. Fr.Reg Bryan even paid for my dinner in there back in the day.

strassenwo!f

We now know that this project will not proceed in the short- or medium-term, but ABP are currently still studying the railway order.

It is amazing, when you look back, and you see that this was treated as a strategic infrastructure project which had to be fast-tracked by ABP.

LeinsterDub

THE prospect of the multibillion-euro Metro North system ever being built appears doomed after a key state agency said it was inferior to another major rail project — the DART Underground.
A report by the National Transport Authority has recommended that the DART Underground "represents the most beneficial public transport project within the Dublin area, with its benefits impacting over a wider area".

The NTA report, seen by the Irish Examiner, states: "If only one of these two large projects can proceed, the better project for the region is DART Underground."

It claims the DART Underground — a 7.6km tunnel linking Heuston Station to the city centre and Docklands area with stops at Pearse Station, St Stephen’s Green and Christchurch — would see all rail lines serving the capital fully integrated "for the first time".

While both projects were praised in terms of their economic potential, the NTA described plans for the DART Underground as "transformative". A separate study by Indecon Consultants also concluded that the DART Underground would deliver greater transport and economic benefits than Metro North.

The NTA report was requested by Transport Minister Leo Varadkar last May as part of the Government’s capital expenditure review, published this month.

The NTA’s recommendation that the underground should be prioritised effectively means plans for Dublin Metro will be dumped, as the Government is unlikely to have finance available for both schemes.

Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin stressed that Metro North and the DART Underground were merely being deferred, rather than cancelled, due to their high cost and serious restrictions on both private investors and the Government to secure funding for such projects.

Metro North has already cost the state €150 million and it is likely to pay out a further €2m compensation to short-listed bidders, with the additional risk of related legal action.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/metro-north-doomed-after-report-favours-dart-project-174535.html

BrianD

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/metro-north-doomed-after-report-favours-dart-project-174535.html

How come it took so long for this to come out? Were the NTA afraid to say it before? They hit the nail on the head - it is the better of the two projects and certainly should get priority.

Also the €2m compensation. The indications that were given before is that the State would be sued left right and centre. Seems a relatively meagre amount.

bk

BrianD wrote: »

How come it took so long for this to come out? Were the NTA afraid to say it before? They hit the nail on the head - it is the better of the two projects and certainly should get priority.

But is it?

DU doesn't add any new lines or serve any areas that aren't already served.

Yes it will mean higher frequency for DART and potentially more electrification. But is is only better utilisation of an existing resource.

Surely MN has more benefit as it brings rail to areas with no rail transport at all, including multiple colleges and hospitals, the largest stadium in Ireland, the airport, massive park and road and one of the largest urban areas in Ireland with no rail transport (Swords).

DU of course is important, but I just can't see how it is more important.

robd

bk wrote: »

But is it?

DU doesn't add any new lines or serve any areas that aren't already served.

Yes it will mean higher frequency for DART and potentially more electrification. But is is only better utilisation of an existing resource.

Surely MN has more benefit as it brings rail to areas with no rail transport at all, including multiple colleges and hospitals, the largest stadium in Ireland, the airport, massive park and road and one of the largest urban areas in Ireland with no rail transport (Swords).

DU of course is important, but I just can't see how it is more important.

Metro North is cart before the horse really. Needs to join up with Dart Underground to provide joined up transport. Report clear states great benefit of MN it but puts DU 1st which is correctly.

Also slightly picky, but can't see how MN uniquely serves largest stadium in Ireland. Surely Drumcondara station already serves it at what would be a joint stop.

markpb

robd wrote: »

Also slightly picky, but can't see how MN uniquely serves largest stadium in Ireland. Surely Drumcondara station already serves it at what would be a joint stop.

You're right (even if he didn't say that MN uniquely served any of those places) but Drumcondra is on a relatively low frequency suburban line - no-one apart from those people coming in from west Dublin anyway are going to take a train to Drumcondra.

monument

bk wrote: »

But is it?

DU doesn't add any
new lines or serve any areas that aren't already served.

Yes it will mean higher frequency for DART and potentially more electrification. But is is only better utilisation of an existing resource.

Surely MN has more benefit as it brings rail to areas with no rail transport at all, including multiple colleges and hospitals, the largest stadium in Ireland, the airport, massive park and road and one of the largest urban areas in Ireland with no rail transport (Swords).

DU of course is important, but I just can't see how it is more important.

Yes, unquestionably it is the best value for money and for the amount of people it would serve.

It would be a game changer for the city. The extra connectivity, capacity, frequency, and key central stations it would offer would be huge.

Capacity would jump from 33 million per year to 100 million. It would put a "metro" standard fully segregated (from other rail and roads) line all the way from Hazelhatch to the Docklands, and by freeing up / bypassing the loopline it would also add to capacity on the northern, Maynooth, and Graystones lines.

The connectivity by just having higher capacity and frequency of the crossing lines from Maynooth - Graystones and Hazelhatch to Balbriggan is large, and then you have the fact that the lines would cross, that there would be at least four connections with Luas, and connections with the Intercity railway stations.

antoinolachtnai

Unfortunately, the Dart Underground scheme is not grade-separated and as such is not suitable for high frequency services beyond Docklands. The station at Docklands would also not be very well suited for turnbacks, so effectively, the proposed scheme is unsuitable for metro-type services.

BrianD

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Dart Underground scheme is not grade-separated and as such is not suitable for high frequency services beyond Docklands. The station at Docklands would also not be very well suited for turnbacks, so effectively, the proposed scheme is unsuitable for metro-type services.

It's still a metro style service, whatever way you look at it.

BrianD

bk wrote: »

But is it?

DU doesn't add any new lines or serve any areas that aren't already served.

Yes it will mean higher frequency for DART and potentially more electrification. But is is only better utilisation of an existing resource.

Surely MN has more benefit as it brings rail to areas with no rail transport at all, including multiple colleges and hospitals, the largest stadium in Ireland, the airport, massive park and road and one of the largest urban areas in Ireland with no rail transport (Swords).

DU of course is important, but I just can't see how it is more important.

It's not just a greater utilsation of an existing resource but an integration of existing resource. It's a piece of infrastructure that has been missing for years. It automatically yields more benefit across the network and city which is more than MN will deliver. It's hugely important and more beneficial to the entire city.

markpb

BrianD wrote: »

more beneficial to the entire city.

Except for the giant chunk of city which still wouldn't have any rail service once DU was built.

Let's not make any mistake - DU would have been a huge improvement over the existing dart and suburban services and would have opened them to more of the city centre than they currently are. It would not increase the catchment of the Dart service at all though.

antoinolachtnai

How is it metro-style? It would be difficult to run 5-minute services on it, and close to impossible to run 3-minute services on it. Two-minute or 90-second services would be out of the question.

The problem would be that trains coming from or going to the tunnel would have to wait for other trains to go by so that it could cross tracks, or alternatively, other trains would have to wait for it. It is acknowledged in the DU EIS that the proposed arrangement would result in lower capacity (of the three options considered in detail, the chosen option for the track layout at Docklands is the one with the lowest capacity, according to the ranking carried out by CIE and its consultants).

strassenwo!f

The NTA? Aren't they the old crayonists from the DTO?

robd

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

How is it metro-style? It would be difficult to run 5-minute services on it, and close to impossible to run 3-minute services on it. Two-minute or 90-second services would be out of the question.

The problem would be that trains coming from or going to the tunnel would have to wait for other trains to go by so that it could cross tracks, or alternatively, other trains would have to wait for it. It is acknowledged in the DU EIS that the proposed arrangement would result in lower capacity (of the three options considered in detail, the chosen option for the track layout at Docklands is the one with the lowest capacity, according to the ranking carried out by CIE and its consultants).

Surely this can be added/fixed later. For example, Northern line could be 4 tracked and a grade separated junction added at the turn off towards Docklands.

Hueston Line could have extra tracks added all the from Kildare to Hueston where there are gaps and a grade separated junction added.

Why does it all have to be gold plated from day 1?

That's the type of logic/expectations that have killed off most of the chances of any infrastructure in Dublin over the next decade (given economic climate as a direct result of banking crisis which is another debate).

antoinolachtnai

You could do that, but you'd have to admit that it wouldn't be 'metro-style'. It might be metro-esque at best, but really, it would be a medium-frequency suburban service like DART.

The marginal cost of building a proper junction at the end is tiny, in the context of a two-billion euro tunnel project. It is enormously more expensive and disruptive to carry out fresh civil works on the site of an already overloaded train line.

Building a proper junction which allows free flow of trains is hardly what I would call 'gold plating'. Building the tunnel 2km longer than it needed to be at the western end would be a better example of gold plating.

This is not the type of logic that killed off this project. What killed it off was that it was a very expensive project that gave very little economic return. The only reason it could ever have been built is because we at one stage had more money than sense.

The reason the return would have been so bad is that the design is so poor. It wasn't going to link with the nearby western line, which means that there could never be a direct link to Coolmine/Blanchardstown. It was designed in such a way that made it disruptive to build and made it cost much more than it needed to cost.

AngryLips

markpb wrote: »

Except for the giant chunk of city which still wouldn't have any rail service once DU was built.

Let's not make any mistake - DU would have been a huge improvement over the existing dart and suburban services and would have opened them to more of the city centre than they currently are. It would not increase the catchment of the Dart service at all though.

But this is the point of DU - it would maximise the value of what infrastructure we've got. Primarily, the Kildare line and the Maynooth line in much the same way Dart has done for the Northern line and Wexford line.

monument

robd wrote: »

Hueston Line could have extra tracks added all the from Kildare to Hueston where there are gaps and a grade separated junction added.

A grade separated junction is already planned at Inchicore (where Dart Underground is to surface) as part of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2.



After exiting the Dart Underground section at Inchicore, Darts will/would/may stop at the open-air Inchicore station and then continue into the middle of the two lines of the four tracking via a fully segregated junction constructed by cut-and-cover.

The Dart line would go under the "up fast" tracks...



Before emerging again up to the surface...

markpb wrote: »

Except for the giant chunk of city which still wouldn't have any rail service once DU was built.

Let's not make any mistake - DU would have been a huge improvement over the existing dart and suburban services and would have opened them to more of the city centre than they currently are. It would not increase the catchment of the Dart service at all though.

They are looking at adding about double the length of Dart lines, from a little over 50km to something around 100km -- that will increase the catchment of the Dart service. Plus you have a trebling of capacity on the network.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Dart Underground scheme is not grade-separated and as such is not suitable for high frequency services beyond Docklands. The station at Docklands would also not be very well suited for turnbacks, so effectively, the proposed scheme is unsuitable for metro-type services.

Why there isn't a turn-back at Docklands is anybody's guess. Irish Rail could be trying to quietly put the pieces of the jigsaw together as they have done with the the overall Dart project, or they may have just messed it up, or they could just have the fingers crossed for some sort of upgrade of the Northern Line in full or part.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The marginal cost of building a proper junction at the end is tiny, in the context of a two-billion euro tunnel project. It is enormously more expensive and disruptive to carry out fresh civil works on the site of an already overloaded train line.

This is a very important point.

For this proposed line, because of the location of the busiest parts of Dublin, there would undoubtedly have been greater west to east traffic through its central section in the early part of the day, and greater east to west traffic in the later part of the day.

For example, in the early part of the day, there would have been considerably more demand to travel from Hazelhatch (and points inwards) to locations up to and including Spencer Dock than there would have been to travel to points beyond Spencer Dock.

Similarly, in the later part of the day, there would have been considerably less demand to travel from points north of Spencer Dock to Hazelhatch (or locations on the way to Hazelhatch) than there would have been for travel from Spencer Dock (or other more central points) to Hazelhatch (or locations along the way to Hazelhatch).

Given that they did not propose to have a grade-separated junction where the interconnector was to have met the Northern line, it was clear that the only way to make proper use of the tunnel would be to have turnback facilities at one or other of the proposed city stations.

The decision of Irish Rail not to take account of this and have a turnback facility (e.g. extra platforms) at either of the proposed stations at Pearse Station or Spencer Dock remains a mystery.

markpb

monument wrote: »

They are looking at adding about double the length of Dart lines, from a little over 50km to something around 100km -- that will increase the catchment of the Dart service. Plus you have a trebling of capacity on the network.

With the exception of the tunnel, there is no new track and no new areas served. DU allows them to upgrade the existing level of service (and change the name from suburban to Dart) but it does not serve new areas.

DWCommuter

markpb wrote: »

With the exception of the tunnel, there is no new track and no new areas served. DU allows them to upgrade the existing level of service (and change the name from suburban to Dart) but it does not serve new areas.

No it doesn't serve new areas, but catchment is not limited to serving new areas. A vastly improved rail network encompassing DART and Suburban will attract new passengers that could actually come from areas not directly served by it. The luas Red line doesn't serve Naas, but an awful lot of people from there join it at the Red Cow P & P.

Aard

I don't know if others share my view, but from an almost philosophical/way-of-life perspective I think it's better to finish what you've started (an almost ready to go Dart network) than to begin a new venture (MN). Otherwise you spend your whole life tying up loose ends.

Now, back to hardnosed economics-based debate :pac:

DWCommuter

Aard wrote: »

I don't know if others share my view, but from an almost philosophical/way-of-life perspective I think it's better to finish what you've started (an almost ready to go Dart network) than to begin a new venture (MN). Otherwise you spend your whole life tying up loose ends.

Now, back to hardnosed economics-based debate :pac:

I have always been of the opinion that you finish what you have before moving on to new stuff. One of the most disturbing factors in the development of MN and DU was the Government malaise towards DU until about 2006 and after much media coverage, lobbying etc. In my opinion the successive FF lead Governments used MN as a vanity project and then factored in DU after it was revealed as being essential to the continued development of Dublin's commuter rail network. Ultimately these Governments weren't committed to either and they were used as carrots via a few million here and there in terms of planning, hearings and generally looking like they were serious. Very easy to do when the country is awash with cash.

I have one funny tale re DU or the Interconnector as it was known then. I was involved with a very decent and honourable Lucan gent in the establishment of a website promoting DU and its benefits. This was back around 2004. The site had a petition that emailed every sitting Dublin based TD about the importance and relevance of DU. Basically you logged on, hit a button and all these wasters got an email outlining DU. It was popular and effective. One day while driving through Ballyfermot (I remember this because I was so stunned at what came next) I got a call from Ciaran Cuffe. He was complaining about the fact that he was receiving all these emails from the site about DU. He claimed to be supportive of what we were doing, but wanted to point out that it wasn't relevant to his constituents in Dun laoghaire and could we remove him from the email list.

Now I don't need to point out the fact that the DART serves Dun laoghaire. I don't need to point out how the DU project benefits Dun Laoghaire. I also hope that I don't need to point out how hopelessly out of touch a future Government TD was in 2004. But this is one example of the political attitude to both DU and other rail based projects in Dublin. Ciaran Cuffe exposed himself as being a complete and utter ignoramus bereft of any undestanding and eventually paid the best price possible by disappearing into the political wilderness. It was a stunning piece of ignorance from Ciaran Cuffe and one that still makes me laugh to this day.

FF lads at least took it on the chin and ignored it. Cuffe actually rang me moaning and groaning about it, but thereby revealing that he was just as out of touch with the rest of them.

Green Party transport policy = eh whatever!

strassenwo!f

In fairness, you slag off Ciaran Cuffe now, and I agree that he was short-sighted not to see the impact that the interconnector would have on his domain.

But at the same time, 2004-06 or thereabouts, you in P11 were continually lauding Eamon Ryan's understanding of the issues, most of which seem to have involved whether the metro would be extended through his constituency.

Not for Eamon a discussion about whether the metro should be extended, or where it should be extended to, but rather impassioned pleas that it should be extended through his constituency because the Luas was already running at capacity.

Not a mention from Eamon that there was a whole section of Dublin South-Central (and elsewhere) which didn't have a Luas line, let alone any possibility of it being upgraded to a metro.

At the time, 2004-06, the breadth of Eamon Ryan's knowledge of the future of Dublin transport was spoken of in hushed tones by the people at the top of P11. See posts by your communications officer and your technical officer at the time.

Perhaps you, as leader of P11 at the time, would spare us your hindsight about Green Party transport policy.

DWCommuter

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In fairness, you slag off Ciaran Cuffe now, and I agree that he was short-sighted not to see the impact that the interconnector would have on his domain.

But at the same time, 2004-06 or thereabouts, you in P11 were continually lauding Eamon Ryan's understanding of the issues, most of which seem to have involved whether the metro would be extended through his constituency.

Not for Eamon a discussion about whether the metro should be extended, or where it should be extended to, but rather impassioned pleas that it should be extended through his constituency because the Luas was already running at capacity.

Not a mention from Eamon that there was a whole section of Dublin South-Central (and elsewhere) which didn't have a Luas line, let alone any possibility of it being upgraded to a metro.

At the time, 2004-06, the breadth of Eamon Ryan's knowledge of the future of Dublin transport was spoken of in hushed tones by the people at the top of P11. See posts by your communications officer and your technical officer at the time.

Perhaps you, as leader of P11 at the time, would spare us your hindsight about Green Party transport policy.

From a personal perspective I have absolutely no recollection of ever being overly supportive of any Green Party transport policy. What a "communications officer" said before May 2005 and what a "technical Officer" said between 2005 and 2006 are vastly different. Neither of them was me. Despite you asserting the term "leader" to me, the reality was quite different. Controlling output from any organisation is difficult unless you impose an almost dictatorial stance on things. I didn't, but wish I had.

For the record I criticised both Eamon Ryan and some other PD guy on The last word in the run up to the 2007 GE. I have no time for the Green Party and never have. If you can provide evidence that I personally was supportive of Green Party Transport policies, then I'll happily deal with it.

BrianD

DWCommuter wrote:

"He claimed to be supportive of what we were doing, but wanted to point out that it wasn't relevant to his constituents in Dun laoghaire and could we remove him from the email list."

Did you not remind him that he was in a national parliament and not in DLR County Council? Decision like DU is so big that it is a national issue.

I had heard a story that the Greens only backed MN to get the rest of their plans and budgets through.

strassenwo!f

This ABP report into the DART underground project. When's that?