DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

You can still use the excess capacity in the tunnel by providing a shuttle service between Kishoge (or indeed Hazelhatch) and Spencer Dock (granted, IE dropped the ball on Spencer Dock by leaving out a turn back platform or 2) without building heavy rail spurs to Blanch/Tallaght and continuing with the orbital light rail with quality interchange at Kishoge. Using a very frequent shuttle means you can also feed the line with bus routes like
-Maynooth-Celbridge-Hazelhatch-Newcastle-Rathcoole
-Clonsilla-Lucan-Adamstown-Kingswood-Tallaght (West)
-Clonsilla-Lucan-Kishoge-Kingswood-Tallaght
-Blanchardstown Centre-Porterstown-(new high level Liffey bridge)-Liffey Valley-Clondalkin-Tallaght (East) (to be replaced by Metro west later)

The key to filling trains in that tunnel IMO is better BUS connections to the train stations along the Kildare Route out as far as Hazelhatch. The roads are generally quite good with bus lanes etc.

Jack Noble

murphaph wrote: »

You can still use the excess capacity in the tunnel by providing a shuttle service between Kishoge (or indeed Hazelhatch) and Spencer Dock (granted, IE dropped the ball on Spencer Dock by leaving out a turn back platform or 2) without building heavy rail spurs to Blanch/Tallaght and continuing with the orbital light rail with quality interchange at Kishoge. Using a very frequent shuttle means you can also feed the line with bus routes like
-Maynooth-Celbridge-Hazelhatch-Newcastle-Rathcoole
-Clonsilla-Lucan-Adamstown-Kingswood-Tallaght (West)
-Clonsilla-Lucan-Kishoge-Kingswood-Tallaght
-Blanchardstown Centre-Porterstown-(new high level Liffey bridge)-Liffey Valley-Clondalkin-Tallaght (East) (to be replaced by Metro west later)

The key to filling trains in that tunnel IMO is better BUS connections to the train stations along the Kildare Route out as far as Hazelhatch. The roads are generally quite good with bus lanes etc.

IE's business case for Dart Underground suggests a peak schedule of 16 trains per hour (one every 3.75 mins).

Table A 7: Drogheda - Hazelhatch Line service frequency – Do Something
Route Trains Per Peak Hour Peak Frequency
Drogheda/Inchicore 8 7.5 minutes
Balbriggan/Hazelhatch* 4 15 minutes
Grange Rd/Hazelhatch* 4 15 minutes
Dundalk/Connolly** 3 20 minutes
Howth/Howth Junction 6 10 minutes

* Frequency between Drogheda and Inchicore will be 8 trains per hour giving a frequency of 7.5mins. This will be supplemented by 4 trains per hour in the peak between Balbriggan – Hazelhatch and Clongriffin – Hazelhatch. This will provide a total service through the DART Underground tunnel of 16 trains in the peak hour (3.75 minutes frequency).
** Diesel operated services

http://www.irishrail.ie/media/dart_underground_business_case1.pdf

Page 61/74

Incidently, that Clongriffin-Hazelhatch train (one every 15 mins) now suggests to me that IE plans that be the Airport Dart service if the spur is built with one train every 15 mins. Just a thought.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

You can still use the excess capacity in the tunnel by providing a shuttle service between Kishoge (or indeed Hazelhatch) and Spencer Dock (granted, IE dropped the ball on Spencer Dock by leaving out a turn back platform or 2) without building heavy rail spurs to Blanch/Tallaght and continuing with the orbital light rail with quality interchange at Kishoge. Using a very frequent shuttle means you can also feed the line with bus routes like
-Maynooth-Celbridge-Hazelhatch-Newcastle-Rathcoole
-Clonsilla-Lucan-Adamstown-Kingswood-Tallaght (West)
-Clonsilla-Lucan-Kishoge-Kingswood-Tallaght
-Blanchardstown Centre-Porterstown-(new high level Liffey bridge)-Liffey Valley-Clondalkin-Tallaght (East) (to be replaced by Metro west later)

The key to filling trains in that tunnel IMO is better BUS connections to the train stations along the Kildare Route out as far as Hazelhatch. The roads are generally quite good with bus lanes etc.

Good bus connections to the Hazelhatch line would certainly be the best approach in the initial stages after the tunnel is built, and the ones you suggest look pretty good.

(There is obviously a lot of hypothesis going on in this discussion.:) Personally, I don't believe that the tunnel will open before 2030, at the earliest).

But if we work on the basis that the tunnel will be built, it should indeed be supplemented by good bus connections, as you said.

But not, ideally, forever.

In the longer term, it would make sense to make the most efficient use of the tunnel. Getting it built will be the hard bit, and after that feeding it with trains - for example by building spurs - would be relatively easy. I do feel that direct rail connections between the city and its' populous suburbs should be the eventual aim: while a good bus connection and a change onto/off a train to/from Hazelhatch is fine - and much better than the current situation - over the course of the 40-year working lives of lots of people who are doing that twice a day, it has got to be more efficient if there is a direct connection which takes out the change.

While I don't think there is the need in Dublin for a situation a la Munich, which effectively has seven or eight spurs from the West of the city feeding into one tunnel, I think it should be feasible to see West Dublin eventually having three or four (including Hazelhatch) bringing people directly into and out of the city. Doable and, in my opinion, desirable.

The figures which Jack Noble brings up above clearly illustrate how the project has been viewed thus far by planners: it is seen as a way of dealing with the capacity issues on the DART line, primarily, and also as a way of connecting the Hazelhatch line to the DART.

Underselling it, I think.

Those figures show the interconnector providing a miserable eight trains per hour West of Inchicore, at peak times, along just one corridor. 16 trains per hour along much of the Northern DART line, and a poxy 8 for a four-tracked route through West Dublin.

This tunnel can, I feel, do a lot better than that.

antoinolachtnai

Jack Noble wrote: »

IE's business case for Dart Underground suggests a peak schedule of 16 trains per hour (one every 3.75 mins).

Table A 7: Drogheda - Hazelhatch Line service frequency – Do Something
Route Trains Per Peak Hour Peak Frequency
Drogheda/Inchicore 8 7.5 minutes
Balbriggan/Hazelhatch* 4 15 minutes
Grange Rd/Hazelhatch* 4 15 minutes
Dundalk/Connolly** 3 20 minutes
Howth/Howth Junction 6 10 minutes

There just isn't sufficient demand from Drogheda to justify running trains from up there. When you go past Clongriffin there just isn't all that much population on the Northern line.

It makes no sense to build infrastructure to serve Drogheda with a 15 minute service whilst large parts of densely populated Dublin have hardly any service.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Good bus connections to the Hazelhatch line would certainly be the best approach in the initial stages after the tunnel is built, and the ones you suggest look pretty good.

(There is obviously a lot of hypothesis going on in this discussion.:) Personally, I don't believe that the tunnel will open before 2030, at the earliest).

But if we work on the basis that the tunnel will be built, it should indeed be supplemented by good bus connections, as you said.

But not, ideally, forever.

In the longer term, it would make sense to make the most efficient use of the tunnel. Getting it built will be the hard bit, and after that feeding it with trains - for example by building spurs - would be relatively easy. I do feel that direct rail connections between the city and its' populous suburbs should be the eventual aim: while a good bus connection and a change onto/off a train to/from Hazelhatch is fine - and much better than the current situation - over the course of the 40-year working lives of lots of people who are doing that twice a day, it has got to be more efficient if there is a direct connection which takes out the change.

While I don't think there is the need in Dublin for a situation a la Munich, which effectively has seven or eight spurs from the West of the city feeding into one tunnel, I think it should be feasible to see West Dublin eventually having three or four (including Hazelhatch) bringing people directly into and out of the city. Doable and, in my opinion, desirable.

The figures which Jack Noble brings up above clearly illustrate how the project has been viewed thus far by planners: it is seen as a way of dealing with the capacity issues on the DART line, primarily, and also as a way of connecting the Hazelhatch line to the DART.

Underselling it, I think.

Those figures show the interconnector providing a miserable eight trains per hour West of Inchicore, at peak times, along just one corridor. 16 trains per hour along much of the Northern DART line, and a poxy 8 for a four-tracked route through West Dublin.

This tunnel can, I feel, do a lot better than that.

16 trains per peak hour through the tunnel is close to the capacity of the tunnel - which is 20 trains per hour (one every three mins), according to IE - and the lines either side of it, particularly the northern line without four-tracking, which limit that capacity.

In the longer term, IE plans to electrify the intercity main lines and run trains direct to the airport - and even to Belfast. That will take up the capacity you believe is being under-utilised.

As for more services beyond Inchicore, I would have thought the solution would be quite simple and obvious- run the trains that terminate there beyond Inchicore.

On your call for spur lines to, for example, Tallaght - where exactly would you put such a Dart line?

Part of the old reservation for the original Dart line serving Ronanstown, Clondalkin and Tallaght has been taken by the Luas Red line and given the level of building and development in the area over the last 40 years, I don't see where you can put Dart line.

Or are you suggesting another tunnel? Or building any Metro West as Dart West and so making it incompatible with Metro North?

Jack Noble

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There just isn't sufficient demand from Drogheda to justify running trains from up there. When you go past Clongriffin there just isn't all that much population on the Northern line.

It makes no sense to build infrastructure to serve Drogheda with a 15 minute service whilst large parts of densely populated Dublin have hardly any service.

It's serving the entire area between Drogheda and central Dublin but the bulk of the demand will still be in Dublin. It simply gives a better and more frequent service in Dublin.

Which parts of Dublin will have 'hardly any' service?

The parts of Dublin with Dart lines will have peak frequencies of between 3 and five minutes. That's pretty good by any standard.

As for the parts of Dublin without rail infrastucture, there is a very big difference between electrifying less than 20km of existing good quality rail track and building entirely new infrastructure.

The initial plan was to electrify to Balbriggan but that was extended to Drogheda due to the growth of it and some of the towns in between in the last decade and the predicted growth along that corridor in the decades to come. The cost of electrifying that stretch of line will be a relatively small in the context of the entire Dart Underground scheme. As will the cost of running electric trains between Balbriggan and Drogheda when they are serving Inchicore and beyond.

I would have thought the whole point of putting in such infrastructure is to encourage the use of it and if people north of Clongriffin or west of Inchicore know they can get a fast, frequent, reliable rail service to Dublin city centre or anywhere else on the Dublin rail network, they would be more likely to take the train rather than the car - just like they do in other countries .

antoinolachtnai

Blanchardstown will have no service. Cabra will have no service. Clonsilla and Phibsboro will have an infrequent service which will have weak destinations (Connolly and Pearse, rather than St Stephen's Green).

It is very expensive to provide and sustain electrification and 15 minute service to Drogheda. The distance is long and the long journey ties up rolling stock going through green fields. The yearly passengers/km will fall to abysmally low levels and this will make the whole thing unviable.

I cannot see the point in opening up land along the corridor up to Drogheda for development, when there is land much closer to the city, around Clondalkin for example.

The frequency of the Dart Underground will also be hampered by the lack of grade separation north of Spencer Dock at the junction with the busy Northern Line.

The way to address these problems is to re-plan DART Underground so that it connects with the Phoenix Park Tunnel, the Western Line and the Northern Line with grade-separated junctions.

Jack Noble

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Blanchardstown will have no service. Cabra will have no service. Clonsilla and Phibsboro will have an infrequent service which will have weak destinations (Connolly and Pearse, rather than St Stephen's Green).

The Maynooth line is being electrifed providing a Dart line to Bray with a frequent service of a minimum of every 7.5 mins. That will serve Blanch and Consilla. Luas will serve Cabra. Metro North will serve Phibsboro. If people want to go to Stephen's Green or Heuston, they change at Pearse.

It is very expensive to provide and sustain electrification and 15 minute service to Drogheda. The distance is long and the long journey ties up rolling stock going through green fields. The yearly passengers/km will fall to abysmally low levels and this will make the whole thing unviable.

No, it's not expensive to provide the extra 20km of infrastructure or run the trains. EMU are cheaper to operate and maintain than DMUs - that's part of the logic of the plan to electrify the mainlines too.

I cannot see the point in opening up land along the corridor up to Drogheda for development, when there is land much closer to the city, around Clondalkin for example.

You can do both.

The frequency of the Dart Underground will also be hampered by the lack of grade separation north of Spencer Dock at the junction with the busy Northern Line.

It's not a problem because the northern Darts will spur off to the towards the tunnel before the Maynooth-Bray Darts and other trains join the line into Connolly. There is no conflict between them.

The way to address these problems is to re-plan DART Underground so that it connects with the Phoenix Park Tunnel, the Western Line and the Northern Line with grade-separated junctions.

Why?

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

16 trains per peak hour through the tunnel is close to the capacity of the tunnel - which is 20 trains per hour (one every three mins), according to IE - and the lines either side of it, particularly the northern line without four-tracking, which limit that capacity.

Firstly, the capacity of the tunnel is not 20 trains per hour. It is considerably higher than that: several cities run 30 (thirty) commuter trains per hour through tunnels which are no different to what the interconnector will be. Munich is a nice example. It is the signalling which IE plan which will only allow the lower throughput.

Secondly, the capacity of the tunnel is, as planned, limited to the capacity of the Northern Line, because IE have not planned to put in turnback platforms at Spencer Dock. If they were to do so, the capacity of the Northern DART line would be irrelevant.

Jack Noble wrote: »

In the longer term, IE plans to electrify the intercity main lines and run trains direct to the airport - and even to Belfast. That will take up the capacity you believe is being under-utilised.

I think it is highly questionable if the interconnector would be put to best use by running direct trains Cork/Limerick/Galway to Dublin Airport/Belfast. Such traffic clogs up the route for commuter trains and happens on an occasional basis, unlike commuter trains which carry passengers on the same route twice a day, every day. Commuter traffic needs to be prioritised in this tunnel.

Jack Noble wrote: »

As for more services beyond Inchicore, I would have thought the solution would be quite simple and obvious- run the trains that terminate there beyond Inchicore.

Exactly. That's what I'm suggesting. But instead of those trains just going all the way out to Hazelhatch and back, because there simply isn't the demand for that level of service along that one corridor, they would peel off at locations west of Inchicore and directly serve other parts of West Dublin.

Jack Noble wrote: »

On your call for spur lines to, for example, Tallaght - where exactly would you put such a Dart line?

Part of the old reservation for the original Dart line serving Ronanstown, Clondalkin and Tallaght has been taken by the Luas Red line and given the level of building and development in the area over the last 40 years, I don't see where you can put Dart line.

I don't know. I've never even got the crayons out on a map of West Dublin for that one. But I would guess you'd be looking at part tunnel (e.g in Tallaght itself), part elevated and part ground level. Maybe some of the metrowest route might be suitable? In any case, hard to imagine that it's not doable, once the task of building a spur has been identified.

As I said above, I think a ca. 20 minute rapid rail connection between the centres of the first and fifth biggest population centres in the country would be highly desirable. One of the reasons why it hasn't really been on the agenda is probably that the planners fear, justifiably, that everybody would jump on a DART from Tallaght into town rather than trundle into town for 45 minutes on the LUAS, and hence the investment in the LUAS would have been wasted. But I would think that by the time the interconnector is built, the LUAS will have been serving its purpose well for many years, and that fear will have dissipated somewhat.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Or are you suggesting another tunnel? Or building any Metro West as Dart West and so making it incompatible with Metro North?

I don't think that compatibility with metro north is the key issue here. First of all, and I am totally guessing here, I feel that that project is in even more doubt than the interconnector. Secondly, I think it is fair to say that the biggest demand for people living in the suburbs of West Dublin is to get into the city. If they can do that directly, so much the better.

The demand from West Dublin citizens for getting on a metrowest tram to travel around the city and then jump on the compatible metro north in order to travel into the city is, I would suggest, fairly minimal.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Firstly, the capacity of the tunnel is not 20 trains per hour. It is considerably higher than that: several cities run 30 (thirty) commuter trains per hour through tunnels which are no different to what the interconnector will be. Munich is a nice example. It is the signalling which IE plan which will only allow the lower throughput.

While the capacity of the DU tunnel could be higher, IE have set it at 20tph and that is partly due to the capacity constraints that will exist when the tunnel comes into service - long after the current signaling upgrade plan is completed and operational.

I am aware that other cities run tunnels at higher capacity, such as Munich, but then Munich is now building a second tunnel because it has hit capacity constraints in the existing tunnel. That same problem exists in Oslo. IE nor the NTA nor government want that happening in Dublin within a few years of the expensive tunnel lines being opened. No one wants a repeat of Luas and capacity problems within a decade - lessons have been learned. DU and Metro are being built with future capacity expansion in mind. It took Munich and Oslo the guts of 40 years to reach over capacity in their S-bahn/commuter rail tunnels.

Secondly, the capacity of the tunnel is, as planned, limited to the capacity of the Northern Line, because IE have not planned to put in turnback platforms at Spencer Dock. If they were to do so, the capacity of the Northern DART line would be irrelevant.

What exactly would be the point of a turnback at Spencer Dock bar running short shuttle services between Inchicore and SD? At peak, there will be a train less than every four minutes - I doubt very much there will be demand for more frequent services between SD and Heuston/Inchicore for a very long time to come.

I think it is highly questionable if the interconnector would be put to best use by running direct trains Cork/Limerick/Galway to Dublin Airport/Belfast. Such traffic clogs up the route for commuter trains and happens on an occasional basis, unlike commuter trains which carry passengers on the same route twice a day, every day. Commuter traffic needs to be prioritised in this tunnel.

Commuter traffic will be prioritised in the tunnel - 16tph at peak is high priority. The extra capacity which you claim is not being used would be better spent allowing long-distance services to the airport or the north, especially off-peak when there is less demand on the tunnel by commuter services. Given the limited resources we have, it makes sense to get the maximum use and benefits from the DU tunnel.

Exactly. That's what I'm suggesting. But instead of those trains just going all the way out to Hazelhatch and back, because there simply isn't the demand for that level of service along that one corridor, they would peel off at locations west of Inchicore and directly serve other parts of West Dublin.

It's an initial proposal based on current demand modelling - if the demand warrants more trains to HH or even further out then it's a simple matter to run extra trains. It's really not something to get het up about 10 to 20 years before the problem even arises.

I don't know. I've never even got the crayons out on a map of West Dublin for that one. But I would guess you'd be looking at part tunnel (e.g in Tallaght itself), part elevated and part ground level. Maybe some of the metrowest route might be suitable? In any case, hard to imagine that it's not doable, once the task of building a spur has been identified.

As I said above, I think a ca. 20 minute rapid rail connection between the centres of the first and fifth biggest population centres in the country would be highly desirable. One of the reasons why it hasn't really been on the agenda is probably that the planners fear, justifiably, that everybody would jump on a DART from Tallaght into town rather than trundle into town for 45 minutes on the LUAS, and hence the investment in the LUAS would have been wasted. But I would think that by the time the interconnector is built, the LUAS will have been serving its purpose well for many years, and that fear will have dissipated somewhat.

It's not even warranted based on the current modelling. Look at the change over the last decade in terms of futire demand on the Tallaght to city centre corridor. Under PFC in 2000, the line would be Metro. By 2030Vision in 2011 it was a Luas. Today, it a BRT - something I'm highly dubious of myself.

Tallaght warrants a higher capacity line but not an expensive Dart spur when spending that money on a direct Metro line which could join Metro North in the CC and serve the airport (as envisaged in PFC), or even a Luas line, via Templeogue, Kimmage and Harolds Cross would make much more sense.

A Dart spur from Tallaght is not on the agenda because there is nowhere to put it given Luas has taken the reserved alignment and the surrounding areas are built up. The expense involved in tunneling or elevating such a line would not be justifiable - never mind buying up the property to allow such a route in the first place.

I don't think that compatibility with metro north is the key issue here. First of all, and I am totally guessing here, I feel that that project is in even more doubt than the interconnector. Secondly, I think it is fair to say that the biggest demand for people living in the suburbs of West Dublin is to get into the city. If they can do that directly, so much the better.

If Dart Underground is built, it makes Metro North more likely to be built afterwards but it will not be built before DU. One of the great mistakes of the Ahern government - of the oh so many that buffoon made - was to prioritise the 'sexy' Metro over the much more important Dart project.

The demand from West Dublin citizens for getting on a metrowest tram to travel around the city and then jump on the compatible metro north in order to travel into the city is, I would suggest, fairly minimal.

Actually, the demand would be quite high because large numbers of people want to move between the western suburbs because that is where many live, work, shop and spent leisure time and they don't want to have to get a train/tram/bus into town and then another train/tram/bus out to their destination.

Metro West takes in the lessons learned in other cities where all routes were radial through the city centre and there were no orbital services between the outer suburbs where so many people work, rest and play.

Stockholm is a very good example. Until recently, all services, Metro and Commuter rail, were radial through the city centre. Since the late-90s, the city has built the Tvarbanan circular light rail line (similar to Luas/Metro West) which runs in an arc through the inner suburbs interchanging with all the Metro and Commuter lines.

The whole purpose of Metro West is to link all of Dublin's populous western suburbs into the future radial rail system for those who wish to travel in and out of the city, as well as allow them to move between Tallaght, Clondalkin-Lucan and Blanchardstown, to take those three areas. Looking at those areas, you have nearly 300,000 people living between them, several large industrial and commercial areas where tens of thousands work, three of the biggest and busiest shopping centres in the country, two major hospitals, one private hospital, two colleges which are amalgamating (ITT and ITB) to form a single institution, countless schools, sports clubs, and other leisure and recreation facilities - all places where tens of thousands of people want go to and from every day.

Metro West makes absolute sense in terms of the Dublin we have today and will have tomorrow and the planned public transporation network (rail, light rail, BRT and bus) to serve the city, suburbs and surrounding towns.

Victor

murphaph wrote: »

IE dropped the ball on Spencer Dock by leaving out a turn back platform or 2

How do you envisage this would be laid out and used?

petronius

the DART Underground yes on the long finger
I think a straighter line from heuston stops at high street, college green, pearse then turn north to docklands
swinging by stephens green is additional time and takes the line away from the centre.
the college green line can be the future main underground with the metro north connecting here and the above ground luas bxd line

murphaph

Victor wrote: »

How do you envisage this would be laid out and used?

Just instead of 2 tracks with an island platform, the linnes entereing would both split and you'd have 4 tracks with 2 island platforms. That's how it is at a (underground) station I alight at in Berlin on the way to work.

murphaph

petronius wrote: »

the DART Underground yes on the long finger
I think a straighter line from heuston stops at high street, college green, pearse then turn north to docklands
swinging by stephens green is additional time and takes the line away from the centre.
the college green line can be the future main underground with the metro north connecting here and the above ground luas bxd line

Stephen's Green (SCBD) is where most commuters want to go.

cabrasnake

petronius wrote: »

the DART Underground yes on the long finger
I think a straighter line from heuston stops at high street, college green, pearse then turn north to docklands
swinging by stephens green is additional time and takes the line away from the centre.
the college green line can be the future main underground with the metro north connecting here and the above ground luas bxd line

Basements in that area mean any College Gn u/g station not possible

Victor

murphaph wrote: »

Just instead of 2 tracks with an island platform, the linnes entereing would both split and you'd have 4 tracks with 2 island platforms. That's how it is at a (underground) station I alight at in Berlin on the way to work.

Apologies, how do you think it would work routing wise - would you see Kildare trains turning back there? What other routes?

murphaph wrote: »

Stephen's Green (SCBD) is where most commuters want to go.

I wonder how true that is these days.

strassenwo!f

I apologise to the board for making such a long post, but there are some points which I feel need to be addressed.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Jack Noble
While the capacity of the DU tunnel could be higher, IE have set it at 20tph and that is partly due to the capacity constraints that will exist when the tunnel comes into service - long after the current signaling upgrade plan is completed and operational.

IE designed the line and the Spencer Dock station and they have (so far) failed to do a fairly simple thing and include turnback platforms in the plan. The major constraints on use of the tunnel are thus constraints self-imposed by IE and their main belief that this tunnel is basically an extension of the northern DART line. Stick in one or more turnback platforms and the constraints imposed by the capacity of the northern DART line disappear.

Jack Noble wrote: »

I am aware that other cities run tunnels at higher capacity, such as Munich, but then Munich is now building a second tunnel because it has hit capacity constraints in the existing tunnel. That same problem exists in Oslo. IE nor the NTA nor government want that happening in Dublin within a few years of the expensive tunnel lines being opened. No one wants a repeat of Luas and capacity problems within a decade - lessons have been learned. DU and Metro are being built with future capacity expansion in mind. It took Munich and Oslo the guts of 40 years to reach over capacity in their S-bahn/commuter rail tunnels.

I'm not familiar with Oslo, but I know Munich fairly well. And in Munich they did get their figures significantly wrong: I can't remember the exact details, but they envisaged that their central tunnel would be capable of carrying 250,000 passengers per day (that one I am sure of), within a year of opening it was carrying 400,000 or 500,000 per day (I can't remember which), and they started planning for the second tunnel when the original one was carrying 750,000 per day.

And it did indeed take Munich around 40 years to start to move to the next phase, when overcapacity in the central tunnel became a real problem. But they did get 40 very effective years out of that tunnel. And still do.

Dublin is light years behind Munich in terms of public transport, yet you suggest that the powers that be in Dublin are wary of eventually having to face Munich's current problems with overcapacity.

This, really, is not the main problem facing Dublin. But, I suppose, one way of proofing against future overcapacity of demand for infrastructure is not to build the infrastructure at all.

Jack Noble wrote: »

What exactly would be the point of a turnback at Spencer Dock bar running short shuttle services between Inchicore and SD? At peak, there will be a train less than every four minutes - I doubt very much there will be demand for more frequent services between SD and Heuston/Inchicore for a very long time to come.

I thought we'd been through this. The idea would be that trains to/from a number of locations (let's say three or four) in West Dublin could connect their suburban terminus with key points in the city centre, then either continue onto the northern DART line, if the capacity of that line allows, or terminate at Spencer Dock and turn back.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Commuter traffic will be prioritised in the tunnel - 16tph at peak is high priority. The extra capacity which you claim is not being used would be better spent allowing long-distance services to the airport or the north, especially off-peak when there is less demand on the tunnel by commuter services. Given the limited resources we have, it makes sense to get the maximum use and benefits from the DU tunnel.

Jack, that whole Cork/Galway/Limerick to/from Dublin Airport/Belfast thing is really not relevant at this stage. There has been no serious analysis done of what it would cost to electrify those inter-urban lines, nor has it been seriously proposed. As diesel trains, they are not going to be going into the interconnector, and if they are eventually upgraded to electrified trains, then it will be a problem which will have to be faced. At the moment, it is, at best, irrelevant.

Jack Noble wrote: »

It's an initial proposal based on current demand modelling - if the demand warrants more trains to HH or even further out then it's a simple matter to run extra trains. It's really not something to get het up about 10 to 20 years before the problem even arises.

So, I think your point here is that we'll throw more trains at Hazelhatch or even further out, if demand from all of west Dublin becomes greater. I believe an eventual arrangement of a group of spurs feeding into the tunnel would allow for a more subtle approach to changes in demand.

Jack Noble wrote: »

It's not even warranted based on the current modelling. Look at the change over the last decade in terms of futire demand on the Tallaght to city centre corridor. Under PFC in 2000, the line would be Metro. By 2030Vision in 2011 it was a Luas. Today, it a BRT - something I'm highly dubious of myself.

Outside of Dublin city itself, Tallaght is the biggest urban centre in the county. Bigger than Swords, and we were all told that the metro couldn't just serve the Airport but had to serve Swords as well. It is also about six times bigger than Maynooth, and it is indeed government policy to electrify that line all the way to that town. (It is also considerably bigger than Hazelhatch). I am sceptical about these models.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Tallaght warrants a higher capacity line but not an expensive Dart spur when spending that money on a direct Metro line which could join Metro North in the CC and serve the airport (as envisaged in PFC), or even a Luas line, via Templeogue, Kimmage and Harolds Cross would make much more sense.

Since that metro line emerged in the pfc document, it hasn't been mentioned. No public consultations, nothing. That's what, twelve years now? It's not going to happen for many years, and if it does I think it would make a lot of sense for it not to go to Tallaght. There will be sufficient demand along that route for people from Terenure, Templeogue, Kimmage, Harold's Cross trying to get into and out of the city. Much better for Tallaght, and for all concerned, to have a rapid rail connection to the Hazelhatch line and into the city, utilising the available capacity in the interconnector.

Jack Noble wrote: »

A Dart spur from Tallaght is not on the agenda because there is nowhere to put it given Luas has taken the reserved alignment and the surrounding areas are built up. The expense involved in tunneling or elevating such a line would not be justifiable - never mind buying up the property to allow such a route in the first place.

I think an important thing here is that it doesn't all have be built all in one go. For the metro west to have any rationale at all, it needs to be built in close to its entirety. For a spur from the Hazelhatch line to be built, and to be effective (in doing its main job of delivering people directly into and out of the city), it does not need to be very long. Then it can be extended gradually over a number of years until it reaches its' final destination (e.g Tallaght or Blanchardstown). As I said above, I have never bothered to get my crayons out to see how a spur to Tallaght might be achieved, but a good place to start might be the metrowest alignment. After all, the metrowest wouldn't be needed if there were spurs in West Dublin from the Hazelhatch line.

Jack Noble wrote: »

If Dart Underground is built, it makes Metro North more likely to be built afterwards but it will not be built before DU. One of the great mistakes of the Ahern government - of the oh so many that buffoon made - was to prioritise the 'sexy' Metro over the much more important Dart project.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Actually, the demand would be quite high because large numbers of people want to move between the western suburbs because that is where many live, work, shop and spent leisure time and they don't want to have to get a train/tram/bus into town and then another train/tram/bus out to their destination.

Metro West takes in the lessons learned in other cities where all routes were radial through the city centre and there were no orbital services between the outer suburbs where so many people work, rest and play.

Stockholm is a very good example. Until recently, all services, Metro and Commuter rail, were radial through the city centre. Since the late-90s, the city has built the Tvarbanan circular light rail line (similar to Luas/Metro West) which runs in an arc through the inner suburbs interchanging with all the Metro and Commuter lines.

The whole purpose of Metro West is to link all of Dublin's populous western suburbs into the future radial rail system for those who wish to travel in and out of the city, as well as allow them to move between Tallaght, Clondalkin-Lucan and Blanchardstown, to take those three areas. Looking at those areas, you have nearly 300,000 people living between them, several large industrial and commercial areas where tens of thousands work, three of the biggest and busiest shopping centres in the country, two major hospitals, one private hospital, two colleges which are amalgamating (ITT and ITB) to form a single institution, countless schools, sports clubs, and other leisure and recreation facilities - all places where tens of thousands of people want go to and from every day.

Metro West makes absolute sense in terms of the Dublin we have today and will have tomorrow and the planned public transporation network (rail, light rail, BRT and bus) to serve the city, suburbs and surrounding towns.

There are two mistakes in this logic.

Firstly, there are all these places along the metrowest route. Hospitals, Institutes of Technology, etc., which people need to get to. Most people in Dublin do not live along the proposed metrowest route. They live in, let's say, Donaghmede and Dolphin's Barn. If they need to get to the hospital in Tallaght or the IT in Blanchardstown, the simplest way is to get into town by DART or bus and get on a westbound interconnector train (with spurs) which will bring them directly to their destination with one change.

Under the current proposals with the metrowest, they get into town and change onto a Hazelhatch train, then they change again onto a metrowest to get to their destination. Two changes. And, for broadly the same amount of money spent on railway lines, not as good.

The metrowest, as planned, will suit many people who live directly along the metrowest route. But I firmly believe that it is not what Dublin, overall, needs at this stage, and it is not where investment should go.

Secondly, these cities like Stockholm, Olso and Munich can do all of this stuff like building orbital routes, because now they have solved the problem of getting people into and out of the city. Munich's the only one of the three which I know, but they have dealt with the issue of getting people rapidly into and out of the city, and I know that they have been expanding their network to provide what might approximate, in some areas of the city, to metrowest-like functions.

But what Munich is doing today is, I'm afraid, not terribly relevant. It's what cities like that did 30 or 40 years ago which are the important lessons for Dublin now.

petronius

cabrasnake wrote: »

Basements in that area mean any College Gn u/g station not possible

So basements in the area was not preventing the Metro being routed through it and stations considered at westmoreland st. pearse st.
I also thought for the BXD luas line basements had to be filled in.

You could have multiple exits/entrances for a college green station - one at taxi rank in front of trinity/or at fosters place, one at the island on pearse street/westmoreland st. or one at the end of grafton st

I am not sure most people want to go to stephens green.
I think the centre - Dame St. Pearse St. Westmoreland and D'oiler st. (as close to the quays as possible) means that the dublin bus network nearly all pass close by

antoinolachtnai

Jack Noble wrote: »

The Maynooth line is being electrifed providing a Dart line to Bray with a frequent service of a minimum of every 7.5 mins. That will serve Blanch and Consilla. Luas will serve Cabra. Metro North will serve Phibsboro. If people want to go to Stephen's Green or Heuston, they change at Pearse.

The population of Maynooth is pretty small. The density beyond Coolmine is low. The service that goes to Maynooth at present is probably appropriate to its size.

No, it's not expensive to provide the extra 20km of infrastructure or run the trains. EMU are cheaper to operate and maintain than DMUs - that's part of the logic of the plan to electrify the mainlines too.

There is not a lot of logic in electrifying lines that only run one train per hour.

A quick look at the Aecom report suggests that electrifying 20km of double track and providing rolling stock for a 4 minute service (say, 6 trains) would cost

EUR0.5m x 20km =10m for electrification
EUR 20m x 6 trains = 120m for trains.
Total €130m

The extra operating cost would be €240 per train.

That is an immense amount of capital. You could build the short spur to Blanchardstown, and a station for EUR 30m at the most and you would only need a small number of extra trains to cover the extra distance. (You would need extra trains to serve the massive demand, but that is a whole other story from running mostly-empty trains through fields.

Ultimately there are constraints on capital. You can't do all the projects. It makes sense to prioritise urban projects over regional projects. The urban centres are where the growth is, and improved urban connections also greatly reduce travel times for people travelling in from further out.

Re: lack of grade separation:

It's not a problem because the northern Darts will spur off to the towards the tunnel before the Maynooth-Bray Darts and other trains join the line into Connolly. There is no conflict between them.

The lack of grade separation will mean that DART trains will conflict with Northern Line trains serving Connolly.

Why?

The reason to re-plan Dart Underground is because it just doesn't make adequate use of the tunnel capacity.

DU can only serve high numbers of people if there is massive economic and housing development along corridors in Louth, Kildare and Meath. This is unlikely, and not necessarily desirable. Serving the density in the outer parts of the existing city and opening up new sites relatively close to the city makes more sense.

Because of the way the junctions are designed in the current DU model, it is basically impossible to run urban type services in the tunnel. It just isn't designed for that sort of operation. It was never the intent of the design.

It isn't as simple as adding a turnback facility somewhere. When you are dealing with high frequencies, you need sufficient platforms, access and operational capability to dwell and load these trains when they are turning back. Scheduling turnbacks in the city centre is not really a great idea anyway if you can avoid it. You really want some sort of 'pendular' system, with trains running through to an outer urban location. The obvious way to do this is to continue trains out the western line through the northern suburbs and towards Blanchardstown.

There are problems with the surface part of the design too. You can't really have a high-frequency service to Coolmine and Maynooth, if you are constrained by all the grade crossings around Sandymount. The line runs along a seaboard anyway, so it does not and never will have very high patronage. The Coolmine end has far more people living within a few kilometres of the line.

To resolve these problems and build a true urban transport system which can transport hundreds of millions of people per year, you really need to rethink the whole design.

cabrasnake

petronius wrote: »

So basements in the area was not preventing the Metro being routed through it and stations considered at westmoreland st. pearse st.
I also thought for the BXD luas line basements had to be filled in.

You could have multiple exits/entrances for a college green station - one at taxi rank in front of trinity/or at fosters place, one at the island on pearse street/westmoreland st. or one at the end of grafton st

I am not sure most people want to go to stephens green.
I think the centre - Dame St. Pearse St. Westmoreland and D'oiler st. (as close to the quays as possible) means that the dublin bus network nearly all pass close by

Allah help us.
There's a huge difference between a deep mined line (MN on the way down under the Liffey) and constructing a station in proximity to the 17th century shallow foundations of Trinity college.
I would suggest you consult the studies already done instead of spoofing off the top of your head.
College Green is the ideal location for a metro station from a commuter connection perspective.
But there is no possibility whatsoever of any station being built there for the reasons given above.

petronius

Sadly I dont think a complete rethink is ever going to be on the cards
I do think the DART under ground should be a high capacity & frequent
It should be the truck of the tree with the kildare line and luas read the roots and long branches from Pearse south east to bray and north to balbriggan and north west to maynooth - with the luas system and bus network the ivy on this tree

If we have a tunnel from the southwestern line why not have it large enough to route all traffic into Dublin Central Railway station at either Pearse street - the major limitation on Irish railways into dublin was the remote location of the termini Broadstone, Hardcourt St. and Heuston

cgcsb

petronius wrote: »

the DART Underground yes on the long finger
I think a straighter line from heuston stops at high street, college green, pearse then turn north to docklands
swinging by stephens green is additional time and takes the line away from the centre.
the college green line can be the future main underground with the metro north connecting here and the above ground luas bxd line

I think that most people agree, that digging up college green is an impossibility, and although digging up Stephen's Green is inconvenient, it'll be many times less disruptive. Also there would be issues with adding tens of thousands of extra pedestrians changing mode in college green without a 24hr car ban.

Zebra3

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The population of Maynooth is pretty small. The density beyond Coolmine is low. The service that goes to Maynooth at present is probably appropriate to its size.

Trains every 7.5 mins will run as far as Clonsilla with their final destinations alternating between Maynooth and Pace, is my understanding.

There's about 30,000 people living in Leixlip and Maynooth as well Intel, HP, and NUIM.

Large amount of land between Clonsilla and Leixlip that could be developed in the future too.

antoinolachtnai

I am sorry. I have to call it. This is a Celtic Tiger fantasy.

HP is a significant walk away from the line. These populations and employment centres are already served with train services.

It is ridiculous to waste a hundred million euros on carriages and electrification and tens of millions of euros a year on wages and electricity to serve villages and fields with 4 tph twice a day.

Why not use these trains to provide a luas-level high frequency service to the densely populated suburbs of Fairview/North Strand, Phibsboro, Druncondra, Navan Road, Castleknock and Blanchardstown? Surely this would be better than serving non-existent ghost housing estates and the expansion plans of now extinct Fianna Fáil cumanns?

The answer is unpalatable but has to be faced up to.

cabrasnake

Exactly. What was wrong with horse and carriages anyway? If you give the plebs big ideas no good ever comes of it.

monument

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

These populations and employment centres are already served with train services.

It's a bit like how pre-Dart the populations along the Dart line were already served by train services?

And that goes for Phibsboro, Druncondra, Navan Road / Royal Canal Park, Castleknock and Blanchardstown just as much as the areas further out -- these will be served by the apparent proposed ~7min peak service (?). And the current plan would leave most of D15 1km or less from Dart stations?

I'm by no means dismissing what you are saying, and overall there's far too little public or political debate about what areas to serve with what mode.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Why not use these trains to provide a luas-level high frequency service to the densely populated suburbs of Fairview/North Strand, Phibsboro, Druncondra, Navan Road, Castleknock and Blanchardstown? Surely this would be better than serving non-existent ghost housing estates and the expansion plans of now extinct Fianna Fáil cumanns?

A key to this would seem to be removing intercity services off the line? Say before Clonsilla or Leixlip, possibly at or before Maynooth, or possablly something as short as 5km and as crazy as this.

antoinolachtnai

Luas runs at a frequency of 2 or 3 minutes. It runs at 7 minute for most of the off-peak period. This is three times more than what DU proposes to offer under the current design.

The truth is that the design of DART Underground would never allow this level of frequency.

Look st it from a macro level. I would expect an electrified rail system to carry 2m or 3mpassengers per year for every km of track. This level of patronage is what makes the whole thing sustainable and makes the investment worthwhile. The DART is performing quite poorly in this respect, because it has a small catchment and has really been over-extended. The service is also not frequent enough to attract bus connections.

I think there is fair bit of capacity for both urban rail and the existing intercity services. There are four tracks west of Glasnevin, after all. There is space around the Maynooth line for passing loops. The same goes for the Hazelhatch line.

For sure, if you wanted to upgrade to a 3 minute service from Blanchardstown you would need some serious further investment. But you could have a 3 minute service to Cabra, Phibsboro, Druncondra and Fairview without too much trouble.

Strong urban rail connections would greatly stimulate demand for intercity services.

In terms of D15, it's Blanchardstown where the highest density of population and jobs are. That's also the place to make the link with the N3. Every bit closer you can get to strong destinations will increase the ridership and sustainability of the line.

The rail reservation is there, waiting to be used.

Why settle for a second-best design, when with a little adjustment we could have something fantastic?

theSHU

monument wrote: »

A key to this would seem to be removing intercity services off the line? Say before Clonsilla or Leixlip, possibly at or before Maynooth, or possablly something as short as 5km and as crazy as this.

Yes, reroute all intercity & outer subburban services (after Leixlip) to the Hueston Line.

Then turn the new Blanchardstown line into a Light Rail line, which would allow us to extend the line into the city centre - by crossing the James Joyce bridge (built for light-rail) and also creating branches off the line to the Blanchardstown centre and the industrial parks of Ballycoolin/Blandchardstown.

All lines will have stations around O'Connell Street bridge..





Light Rail is the future. Bring public transport to the doorsteps. Make it easy & convient for people.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zWWoEiJ1GCKY.kYFJ9b7Tpqro

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I apologise to the board for making such a long post, but there are some points which I feel need to be addressed.

IE designed the line and the Spencer Dock station and they have (so far) failed to do a fairly simple thing and include turnback platforms in the plan. The major constraints on use of the tunnel are thus constraints self-imposed by IE and their main belief that this tunnel is basically an extension of the northern DART line. Stick in one or more turnback platforms and the constraints imposed by the capacity of the northern DART line disappear.

There is no need for a turnback at Docklands/Spencer Dock because it serves no purpose. Also the Docklands/Spencer Dock station is in the tunnel - the portals are about 400m north of the station - care to tell us where you will actually put such turnback facilities? And how?

But if a turnback is so essential, it can be done at the next station, Clontarf, where the infrastructure already exists. Why duplicate that 1km or so down the line?

I'm not familiar with Oslo, but I know Munich fairly well. And in Munich they did get their figures significantly wrong: I can't remember the exact details, but they envisaged that their central tunnel would be capable of carrying 250,000 passengers per day (that one I am sure of), within a year of opening it was carrying 400,000 or 500,000 per day (I can't remember which), and they started planning for the second tunnel when the original one was carrying 750,000 per day.

Munich has 8 S-Bahn lines using that tunnel - that's why it's now at capacity even though most of the those lines have a frequency of only three trains per hour, while some lines have 6tph at peak, giving peak frequencies of trains every 2 mins along the tunnel section. The same applies in Oslo.

Dublin has neither the existing rail system that would allow that - nor has it the need for it. IE/NTA plans for 16tph (one train every 3.75mins) at peak on the core section of the planned line, including the tunnel section, should be more than enough to serve the GDA for some decades to come. But if it isn't come 2040 or 2050 or whenever, the additional capacity will be there.

And it did indeed take Munich around 40 years to start to move to the next phase, when overcapacity in the central tunnel became a real problem. But they did get 40 very effective years out of that tunnel. And still do.

Dublin is light years behind Munich in terms of public transport, yet you suggest that the powers that be in Dublin are wary of eventually having to face Munich's current problems with overcapacity.

This, really, is not the main problem facing Dublin. But, I suppose, one way of proofing against future overcapacity of demand for infrastructure is not to build the infrastructure at all.

And IE/NTA/RPA are learning the lessons of what has been done here in Dublin before (Dart/Luas) and other cities (including Munich, Stockholm, Oslo) by building plenty of capacity growth into both the planned Dart and Metro systems. For example, the Metro North line could cope with up to 40 trains per hour (one every 90 seconds) but RPA sees the maximum capacity at 30tph (train every 2 mins) but initially plans to run 15 to 20 (tph) at peak (every 4 or 3 mins) based on initial forecast demand. IE plan the exact same with Dart through the tunnel.

What is the point of building a €4 billion system that we plan to run at near capacity from Day 1? Have we learned no lessons from Luas? This infrastructure will last many decades - the lines DU will link up and integrate were laid down 150 years ago. That's what people should be thinking in terms of.

To answer that question - while internet experts clearly haven't, IE/RPA/NTA have.

I thought we'd been through this. The idea would be that trains to/from a number of locations (let's say three or four) in West Dublin could connect their suburban terminus with key points in the city centre, then either continue onto the northern DART line, if the capacity of that line allows, or terminate at Spencer Dock and turn back.

Any trains from West Dublin (Adamstown, Kishougue, Fonthill/Clondalkin, Parkwest/Cherry Orchard) can run through to Clontarf or Clonngriffin before turning back - makes much more sense that Spencer Dock.

Jack, that whole Cork/Galway/Limerick to/from Dublin Airport/Belfast thing is really not relevant at this stage. There has been no serious analysis done of what it would cost to electrify those inter-urban lines, nor has it been seriously proposed. As diesel trains, they are not going to be going into the interconnector, and if they are eventually upgraded to electrified trains, then it will be a problem which will have to be faced. At the moment, it is, at best, irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant. IE's plans for electrification, if approved by government, are timed to coincide with the next intercity fleet replacement programme which is due from the mid-2020s onwards. So, given the delays in DartU due to lack of funding, at this stage the earliest we can expect to see DU operational is circa 2023/2024 (assuming start date in 2015/16) which will neatly dovetail with the first intercity fleet replacement/upgrades on the Cork/Limerick lines.

http://www.irishrail.ie/index.jsp?p=124&n=264

So, I think your point here is that we'll throw more trains at Hazelhatch or even further out, if demand from all of west Dublin becomes greater. I believe an eventual arrangement of a group of spurs feeding into the tunnel would allow for a more subtle approach to changes in demand.

I've never understood why they chose to Dart at Hazelhatch - it makes much more sense to run to Kildare town and taken in Naas/Sallins and Newbridge too.

A group of spurs would have been a good idea - as it was 40 years ago under DRRTS - or even 20 years ago before the mad development of the Ahern years. But that would have required vision and forward planning and Irish politicians don't look beyond the next election.

The problem is that now, West Dublin is so built up between Blanchardstown and Tallaght that there is nowhere to put Dart spurs without expensive tunneling which simply cannot be afforded or justified.

Outside of Dublin city itself, Tallaght is the biggest urban centre in the county. Bigger than Swords, and we were all told that the metro couldn't just serve the Airport but had to serve Swords as well. It is also about six times bigger than Maynooth, and it is indeed government policy to electrify that line all the way to that town. (It is also considerably bigger than Hazelhatch). I am sceptical about these models.

Ok, you've suggested this - please show us where you would put a Dart spur from the Kildare line to Tallaght given that the alignment reserved under DRRTS is long gone and the area between the line and Tallaght has been massively developed over the last 40 years.

Show us an alignment? Where would it serve to maximise the investment? Would it be surface, tunnel or elevated? How much would it cost?

Also, have we learned no lessons with the Red Luas line and wanderly wagon routes? How long would a Tallaght to SSG journey take on this magical Dart spur you dream of?

Since that metro line emerged in the pfc document, it hasn't been mentioned. No public consultations, nothing. That's what, twelve years now? It's not going to happen for many years, and if it does I think it would make a lot of sense for it not to go to Tallaght. There will be sufficient demand along that route for people from Terenure, Templeogue, Kimmage, Harold's Cross trying to get into and out of the city. Much better for Tallaght, and for all concerned, to have a rapid rail connection to the Hazelhatch line and into the city, utilising the available capacity in the interconnector.

See above.

I think an important thing here is that it doesn't all have be built all in one go. For the metro west to have any rationale at all, it needs to be built in close to its entirety. For a spur from the Hazelhatch line to be built, and to be effective (in doing its main job of delivering people directly into and out of the city), it does not need to be very long. Then it can be extended gradually over a number of years until it reaches its' final destination (e.g Tallaght or Blanchardstown). As I said above, I have never bothered to get my crayons out to see how a spur to Tallaght might be achieved, but a good place to start might be the metrowest alignment. After all, the metrowest wouldn't be needed if there were spurs in West Dublin from the Hazelhatch line.

So, essentially, you have come up with an idea but have given absolutely no thought to how you would implement that idea? Maybe you should develop your 'idea' a tad more before telling the world about it.

There are two mistakes in this logic.

Firstly, there are all these places along the metrowest route. Hospitals, Institutes of Technology, etc., which people need to get to. Most people in Dublin do not live along the proposed metrowest route. They live in, let's say, Donaghmede and Dolphin's Barn. If they need to get to the hospital in Tallaght or the IT in Blanchardstown, the simplest way is to get into town by DART or bus and get on a westbound interconnector train (with spurs) which will bring them directly to their destination with one change.

About 300,000 people live along the Metro West route between Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan and Blanchardstown. That's roughly the same along the Metro North corridor and more than live along either of the existing Luas lines and similar to the number living along the current Dart line.

How many people work in that Tallaght-Blanch corridor considering the number of industrial, commerical, retail and leisure facilities in the area, not to mention two acute hospitals, two third-level institutes and three of the biggest shopping and recreation developments in the country? How many of them live in that same area?

And how many of those that don't live in areas served by the other existing and planned radial lines (Dart/Metro/Luas/BRT) into the city centre and can simply finish their journey by changing onto Metro West?

Under the current proposals with the metrowest, they get into town and change onto a Hazelhatch train, then they change again onto a metrowest to get to their destination. Two changes. And, for broadly the same amount of money spent on railway lines, not as good.

OK, let's see. Someone lives in Leixlip and works in Tallaght Hospital or ITT - Dart to Porterstown, change to Metro West - one change needed.

Someone lives in Drumcondra and works in Blanchardstown Centre or attends IT Blanch, under the current plan they have three choices - Dart to Porterstown and change to MW or take Metro North to Dardistown and change to MW or simply wait for direct MW train to Blanch as envisaged under 2030Vision.

Same applies to working in Liffey Valley or anywhere along the corridor.

One change is always the ideal but two changes (or more) is not uncommon in other cities. For example, a friend of mine works in Zurich - his daily commute involves a 10-minute drive to the nearest rail station, a 40-minute train ride to Zurich Bahnhof and then two short-tram rides to the office. That's the norm and he's got used to it - and that's a city and environs smaller and with less people than Dublin and the GDA and a public transport (rail/tram/bus) that Dubliners would kill for. He previously lived and worked just outside Belfast (a similar-sized city to Zurich but with a PT system worse than Dublin) and had to drive everywhere.

The metrowest, as planned, will suit many people who live directly along the metrowest route. But I firmly believe that it is not what Dublin, overall, needs at this stage, and it is not where investment should go.

Metro West is a very smart idea because it takes into account how Dublin has developed and how it will develop in the future - not how people wish it had developed before the Celtic Tiger arrived and ran amok. It distributes people across the western suburbs and onto the planned radial lines into the city - which at this stage I count at 8 (Tallaght-city centre BRT, Luas Red Line, Kildare Dart, Lucan Luas, Maynooth Dart/Navan/Pace trains, Blanch BRT, Finglas Luas, Metro North). That gives a lot of rapid access to the city centre/cross city routes with one change.

Secondly, these cities like Stockholm, Olso and Munich can do all of this stuff like building orbital routes, because now they have solved the problem of getting people into and out of the city. Munich's the only one of the three which I know, but they have dealt with the issue of getting people rapidly into and out of the city, and I know that they have been expanding their network to provide what might approximate, in some areas of the city, to metrowest-like functions.

But what Munich is doing today is, I'm afraid, not terribly relevant. It's what cities like that did 30 or 40 years ago which are the important lessons for Dublin now.

And Dublin's transport planners have learned the lessons of these cities and have planned a PT system to make best use of the infrastructure we have couple with new infrastructure that takes into account the reality of the city we have today and how it can develop in the coming decades.

Jack Noble

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The population of Maynooth is pretty small. The density beyond Coolmine is low. The service that goes to Maynooth at present is probably appropriate to its size.

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?

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?

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?

There is not a lot of logic in electrifying lines that only run one train per hour.

The plan is to electrify all the main intercity lines when the next fleet replacement programme is due because long-term, the operation and maintenance of electric fleets will be more economic and efficient than the current diesel trains. We're only 50 to 100 years behind the rest of Europe in that regard.

The electrification of the intercity lines, coupled with the Dart Underground tunnel and the Clongriffin-Airport spur opens up new possibilities for travel within Ireland and to/from Ireland. It makes economic sense.

A quick look at the Aecom report suggests that electrifying 20km of double track and providing rolling stock for a 4 minute service (say, 6 trains) would cost

EUR0.5m x 20km =10m for electrification
EUR 20m x 6 trains = 120m for trains.
Total €130m

€10m out of a €4,000,000 scheme really is not that much is it considering the benefits it will offer over decades?

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.

The extra operating cost would be €240 per train.

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.

That is an immense amount of capital. You could build the short spur to Blanchardstown, and a station for EUR 30m at the most and you would only need a small number of extra trains to cover the extra distance. (You would need extra trains to serve the massive demand, but that is a whole other story from running mostly-empty trains through fields.

As I asked Strassenwolf, where do you put such a spur, given how built up the area between the M50 and Clonsilla has become over the last three decades? The time to do that was in the 80s, as suggested by DRRTS - before the Blanchardstown Centre and all the surrounded housing estates were built.

And were it to be built, like Strassenwolf's Tallaght spur plan, it would require either tunneling or elevation and the buying up of a considerable amount of property, at huge cost.

Ultimately there are constraints on capital. You can't do all the projects. It makes sense to prioritise urban projects over regional projects. The urban centres are where the growth is, and improved urban connections also greatly reduce travel times for people travelling in from further out.

Which is precisely what the NTA/RPA/IE plans do for the areas they plan to serve.

Re: lack of grade separation:


The lack of grade separation will mean that DART trains will conflict with Northern Line trains serving Connolly.

Seeing as most trains on that line will be Darts, the number of trains at that junction will be what, three, four or five (Dundalk and Belfast)? Not really a problem.

The reason to re-plan Dart Underground is because it just doesn't make adequate use of the tunnel capacity.

One train every 3.75 mins at peak makes considerable use of the capacity from day one. And leaves space for growth over the coming decades. We do not need to use all the capacity from day one and to do so would be a spectacular waste of €4bn. Luas is a case in point.

DU can only serve high numbers of people if there is massive economic and housing development along corridors in Louth, Kildare and Meath. This is unlikely, and not necessarily desirable. Serving the density in the outer parts of the existing city and opening up new sites relatively close to the city makes more sense.

That is exactly what is likely to happen over the next 50 years and it is more than desirable, it is essential the areas along the line are developed to make use of the infrastructure - rather than the the development over the last 20 years where estates were thrown up in the middle of nowhere.

Because of the way the junctions are designed in the current DU model, it is basically impossible to run urban type services in the tunnel. It just isn't designed for that sort of operation. It was never the intent of the design.

No it's not. No need for grade separation on Northern Line above Connolly while the Inchicore junction is four-tracked and grade-separated.

It isn't as simple as adding a turnback facility somewhere. When you are dealing with high frequencies, you need sufficient platforms, access and operational capability to dwell and load these trains when they are turning back. Scheduling turnbacks in the city centre is not really a great idea anyway if you can avoid it. You really want some sort of 'pendular' system, with trains running through to an outer urban location. The obvious way to do this is to continue trains out the western line through the northern suburbs and towards Blanchardstown.

There will be a turnback facility at Inchicore and the room and infrastructure exists for one at Clontarf. On the other Dart line, one exists at Dun Laoghaire and can be installed at the planned new station at Porterstown between Coolmine and Clonsilla.

There are problems with the surface part of the design too. You can't really have a high-frequency service to Coolmine and Maynooth, if you are constrained by all the grade crossings around Sandymount. The line runs along a seaboard anyway, so it does not and never will have very high patronage. The Coolmine end has far more people living within a few kilometres of the line.

And the plans exist to remove the level crossings on the Maynooth line under DartU - in fact, some of them are are in the new 2013-18 strategy from the NTA. The removal of the level crossings between Sandymount and Merrion Gates are in 2030Vision.

To resolve these problems and build a true urban transport system which can transport hundreds of millions of people per year, you really need to rethink the whole design.

No we don't - we need to implement the plans we have. It's that simple.