DART+ (DART Expansion)

LXFlyer

For all our sakes Strassenwo!f, why don't you contact the Irish Rail project team directly and ask them why they chose the route they did over College Green?

From what I can tell, you took no active part in the planning process, have had no contact with any of the bodies involved, and are coming to conclusions in your own mind without actually discussing it with the people behind the scheme.

What could you possibly have to lose by doing that?

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The task was to integrate all the rail-based forms of transport in the city and, until very recently (the last couple of years), that meant building via St. Stephen's Green. End of. It no longer does.

St. Stephen's Green was selected as the interchange with Luas BEFORE the link between the RED/Green was dropped by Mark O'Rourke, so it was never the only option.

St. Stephen's Green was chosen, in part (IMHO) because they wanted to go to Docklands and the large land bank that CIÉ had there.

monument

Can I suggest that this Green vs Green strand of discussion contuine on this new thread:

College Green vs St Stephen's Green as public transport interchanges

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057213343

Cinephille1888

I've followed this thread for years, and mostly am glad that sensible support of this plan has continued.

In fact, the idea that the debate here frequently sinks into the quagmire of Green vs Green show's a stubborn rejection of the facts that is just mind boggling.

I won't mention or repeat any of the many many valid reasons why College green is a terrible option. It's been done to death within here.

What I will say is that hopeful resurrection of these plans is not far away.

I can foresee Leo leaving a new business impact statement on his desk for the cabinet reshuffle. And then maybe the new victim passing on stacks of paper to civil servants who've handled it for years and asking more questions about it all in time for the 2015 budget.

With the bruh-ha-ha that will come with press releases, and spinning fan fare, We could have a program for stabling works from late 2015 onwards. With real tangible construction 2016-20.

With that we have to ask are the lines going to be read on the other end of the tunnels.

I can't place or refer to the posts which discuss this, but will the plan still go to Balbriggan, and Hazelhatch?

There was always short-sightedness in my opinion not going to Drogheda, but admittedly I live in Clogherhead so I've always supported a Dunleer and Drogheda North also.

Balbriggan is very close to the coast, parks and pitches are on either side of the track after the station.

A disused siding is on the coastal side. An old convent school and then pitches on the west.

With coastal erosion, I feel the turn back/stabling or even maintenance facilities should be on the land side of the tracks. What form will this take and how large will it be. Will there be provision for stabling northwards as well if the Dart is expanded again.

(Mosney "Station" could be added to post 2030 Northward expansions also.)

As for Hazelhatch end, is there going to be Inchicore facilities for Darts or will Clontarf be used.

Where is the Maynooth EMU depot going to be? Or will this be cut back to DMU services of higher frequency first before DU is completed?



I've also concerns that Howth branch services are too much of a conflict with Northern and Enterprise services still running through.

I am interested in the Railusers plan for a new tunnel from Clontarf too Airport/Swords, then re-joining in Skerries. At 2006 growth figures, and pure fantasy planning competency from Fingal, this could have been smart long term investment. Instead we are stuck with the Northern line as it is.

I would love a Howth shuttle or convert to branch of Metro West/North with an interchange. But considering recent investment in the footbridge, a shuttle is more likely.

Will Clongriffen and surrounding area's ever be developed fully to justify a bus and park and ride interchange on the east side? Current drop off zone and underground parking seem a bit of disjoint mess that isn't capable of serving future demand, let alone the ghost town feel of present.


I think i've other questions and ideas that may be neglected by the back and forth nature of this thread, but another time .

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

For all our sakes Strassenwo!f, why don't you contact the Irish Rail project team directly and ask them why they chose the route they did over College Green?
From what I can tell, you took no active part in the planning process, have had no contact with any of the bodies involved, and are coming to conclusions in your own mind without actually discussing it with the people behind the scheme.
What could you possibly have to lose by doing that?

I haven't had a chance to look at this thread all week, so sorry for taking so long to reply to this sensible post.

What I think is not important. Whatever information I could get, as a non-resident, is not important, as I'm not somebody who will be paying for, or who will regularly benefit from, this proposed tunnel (and related schemes).

I think it is inherently a good plan, if properly implemented. But there is no way, when push comes to shove, that it will be implemented at all, if it can't be clearly shown that all the options were looked at, that all the impacts on movement of people into, out of and across the city were analysed at length, and that all the costs of all the options were properly considered.

It is, after all, a 2-4 bilion euro plan, depending on who you listen to. That is, in anybody's language, a considerable amouunt. "We spent 44 million on design" is not going to cut it if you can't, in the heel of the hunt, explain that you were designing the right route.

My comments on this issue over the last few weeks - which, until there is any evidence to the contrary, in my opinion represent something which should be better for Dublin than the currently proposed plan - should have been received with a deluge of posters linking or pointing me to documentation from the DOT, the RPA and IE, detailing these organisations' extensive deliberations over the last 10-15 years about the flaws of College Green (or other city centre locations) and further documentation about why St. Stephen's Green is the best location for an interchange, despite the extra costs involved in building DU through there, and the very unconvincing passenger figures which have been shown for that location.

This has not happened.

If it is all so obvious that St. Stephen's Green is so good, and people who question this are obtuse, clueless about public transport, etc., why has this documentation not been produced, or even mentioned on this thread?

ianpresley

Self appointed internet watchdogs are quite rightly not noticed let alone disregarded by those tasked with making infrastructure plans.
Such forums are full of nuts.
Public open days are signalled and if you miss them then you weren't that interested.
These forums are hot air fantasy fiestas which no person who is actually doing anything serious would have the time or interest to engage with.

TheBandicoot

Strassenwolf, move to the other thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057213343

Sam Russell

Jack Noble wrote: »

The 2008 plan included the replacement of the current fleet. That has since been scaled back.



The DartU plan includes the electrification of the Northern line to Drogheda, Maynooth line, and Kildare line to Hazelhatch.

IE's 2010 business case for DU suggested 16 trains per hour per direction through the tunnel at peak times and up to 8 trains per hour on the Maynooth-Greystones line with an additional 2 trains per hour between Connolly and Bray.


If the demand is there, then IE will provide the peak service to meet it. There's no point spending €2bn-plus on a tunnel and then not utilising it.

They currently run 2 trains per hour from Greystones, and 4 per hour from Bray. They could not run 16 trains per hour from Booterstown to Grand Canal Dock without major work on the level crossings at Merrion Gates, Sydney Parade, Sandymount, and Lansdowne. At present the Sydney Parade gates close for 3 minutes for a North bound Dart and 2 minutes for a South bound Dart. So at 16 trains per hour, the gates would never open, and just the North bound trains would cause the gates to be closed for 48 mins per hour, with the South bound trains requiring a further 32 mins. If the timing was not right, the gates would be closed for 80 mins per hour.

There is no room for a bridge, nor is there room for a tunnel. The railway could be dropped into a cutting, but that would mean no Darts for a year or more. Elevating the line would be just as bad. Maybe the Dart Underground should start at Booterstown!



These proposed frequencies are just pie in the sky.

AngryLips

Sam Russell wrote: »

These proposed frequencies are just pie in the sky.

Trains running through proposed extension would not be going to Bray/Greystones. They would be running up to Howth/Malahide.

Jack Noble

Sam Russell wrote: »

They currently run 2 trains per hour from Greystones, and 4 per hour from Bray. They could not run 16 trains per hour from Booterstown to Grand Canal Dock without major work on the level crossings at Merrion Gates, Sydney Parade, Sandymount, and Lansdowne. At present the Sydney Parade gates close for 3 minutes for a North bound Dart and 2 minutes for a South bound Dart. So at 16 trains per hour, the gates would never open, and just the North bound trains would cause the gates to be closed for 48 mins per hour, with the South bound trains requiring a further 32 mins. If the timing was not right, the gates would be closed for 80 mins per hour.

There is no room for a bridge, nor is there room for a tunnel. The railway could be dropped into a cutting, but that would mean no Darts for a year or more. Elevating the line would be just as bad. Maybe the Dart Underground should start at Booterstown!



These proposed frequencies are just pie in the sky.

You need to retake Reading Comprehension 101

Sam Russell

Jack Noble wrote: »

You need to retake Reading Comprehension 101

Watever that means.

The piece quoted says there will be 8 trains per hour on the Maynooth-Greystones line with an additional 2 trains per hour between Connolly and Bray. That is 10 trains per hour. They cannot manage more than 4 trains per hour currently. Why do they exagerate the possible numbers?

There is no mention of Maynooth to Howth or Malahide.

monument

Sam Russell wrote: »

Watever that means.

The piece quoted says there will be 8 trains per hour on the Maynooth-Greystones line with an additional 2 trains per hour between Connolly and Bray. That is 10 trains per hour. They cannot manage more than 4 trains per hour currently. Why do they exagerate the possible numbers?

There is no mention of Maynooth to Howth or Malahide.

You did however say: "They could not run 16 trains per hour from Booterstown to Grand Canal Dock.."

There's no plan for such, and the other poster said the 16 per hour was for the tunnel.

And there are plans to tackle at least some of the level crossings. For example, this design work was funded in 2012:

"Merrion Gates Level Crossing Closure Scheme. Progression of the design for a road link to facilitate the closure of the Merrion Gates level crossing. €100,000"

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

Watever that means.

The piece quoted says there will be 8 trains per hour on the Maynooth-Greystones line with an additional 2 trains per hour between Connolly and Bray. That is 10 trains per hour. They cannot manage more than 4 trains per hour currently. Why do they exagerate the possible numbers?

There is no mention of Maynooth to Howth or Malahide.

They mean that the reference to 16 trains per hour was through the tunnel from Heuston and operating north to Howth or Malahide. There is no mention of 16 trains per hour to stations south of Pearse which you were basing your comments about Merrion Gates on.

However, your current calculations are also totally incorrect.

Southbound, between 0800 and 0900, there are 11 trains operating south of Grand Canal Dock. There are 7 southbound DARTs and 4 commuter services.

Northbound there 7 trains operating past Merrion Gates between 0800 and 0900.

So I'd beg to differ that the line cannot cope with more than 4 trains per hour.

D.L.R.

Sam Russell wrote: »

They currently run 2 trains per hour from Greystones, and 4 per hour from Bray. They could not run 16 trains per hour from Booterstown to Grand Canal Dock without major work on the level crossings at Merrion Gates, Sydney Parade, Sandymount, and Lansdowne. At present the Sydney Parade gates close for 3 minutes for a North bound Dart and 2 minutes for a South bound Dart. So at 16 trains per hour, the gates would never open, and just the North bound trains would cause the gates to be closed for 48 mins per hour, with the South bound trains requiring a further 32 mins. If the timing was not right, the gates would be closed for 80 mins per hour.

There is no room for a bridge, nor is there room for a tunnel. The railway could be dropped into a cutting, but that would mean no Darts for a year or more. Elevating the line would be just as bad. Maybe the Dart Underground should start at Booterstown!



These proposed frequencies are just pie in the sky.

There's plenty of room for a bridge at Merrion Gates, and there is a study currently looking at all options to close the crossing. The other crossings are all local and one or two could feasibly close in the longer term.

ianpresley

[Mod]
<--snipped-->
Read the charter of the forum
-Dubhthach
[/Mod]

Aard

Jack Noble wrote: »

You need to retake Reading Comprehension 101

Attack the post not the poster.

- Mod.

Cinephille1888

The difference on the southern stretches to now once DU is completed is that the frequency will not be affected by all of the same conflicts with Northern services at Connolly.

Trains from Bray/Greystones will for the most part also travel much further and mostly go to Maynooth, or split and go to Dunboyne.

Lets say 8 Darts an hour on average? 6 to Maynooth 2 to Dunboyne.

At peak, at a squeeze you could get 12 Darts.

Now this frequency is piss poor as a rapid transit standard, but it is good considering up to 50% of the southern stretches catchment is water in some places.

This may leave Western Commuter services at a bit of a disadvantage. So Longford/Sligo Commuter and intercity trains may get a boost from re-signalling and the level crossing works that CAN be completed on that railway.


Sadly the Southern Dart may be the poor cousin of the rest of the network following this upgrade.

Considering it's been running as a commuter railway for over 100 years, and Dart for 27 or so, it really deserves a better service into the future.

However, Dart's creation, and the building of the Aviva were 2 of the best moments to carry out such work and it was ignored.


Maybe when Luas to Bray is built and better bus priority is available on the N 11 a staged closure could take place from 2027 onwards? Close gates, move roads, widen roads, divert traffic. Hopefully elevate or undercut some locations.

Full segregation may be difficult however.


Same issue exists with Howth Junction -Howth. Good argument for it being a shuttle off peak most of the time, with event priority in summers for the crowds.

(Cause we're more likely to get summers into the future as is, so closing the branch would be wasteful)

murphaph

In the grand scheme of things and when viewed against the backdrop of a multi-billion Euro tunnel, sorting out 10 level crossings is nothing. Merrion Gates are easy to grade separate. There's free land and the sea can be reclaimed to make more if needs be. They may not even have to CPO a single property for that one. Sydney Parade would be harder. They dropped the ball at Lansdowne Road...should have incorporated a new station and grade separation as part of the stadium redevelopment.

D.L.R.

murphaph wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things and when viewed against the backdrop of a multi-billion Euro tunnel, sorting out 10 level crossings is nothing. Merrion Gates are easy to grade separate. There's free land and the sea can be reclaimed to make more if needs be. They may not even have to CPO a single property for that one. Sydney Parade would be harder. They dropped the ball at Lansdowne Road...should have incorporated a new station and grade separation as part of the stadium redevelopment.

There's a blasé attitude to Grade separation in this country unfortunately. Lansdowne a case in point. Here's another-

https://maps.google.com/?ll=53.27324,-6.20263&spn=0.003606,0.006899&t=k&z=17

Sam Russell

D.L.R. wrote: »

There's plenty of room for a bridge at Merrion Gates, and there is a study currently looking at all options to close the crossing. The other crossings are all local and one or two could feasibly close in the longer term.

Sydney Parade has a bus route (47) plus 18 and out of service buses feeding Sandymount on occasions, so that is not local. Sandymount gate has the 18 bus route so that is not local. Landowne requires coaches and buses to be able to access the stadium. That leaves how many?

11 trains saouthbound is 22 mins in the hour 8 to 9, with 7 northbound also requires 21 mins, leaving 18 minutes for traffic in the busiest hour of the day. The gates remain closed while the trains wait at the Northbound platform which could add anoth minute meaning the gates could be left closed for nearly 50 minutes in the hour 8 to 9.

And that is now before the extra trains.

The congestion at Merrion is mentioned every morning on AA Roadwatch.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things and when viewed against the backdrop of a multi-billion Euro tunnel, sorting out 10 level crossings is nothing. Merrion Gates are easy to grade separate. There's free land and the sea can be reclaimed to make more if needs be. They may not even have to CPO a single property for that one. Sydney Parade would be harder. They dropped the ball at Lansdowne Road...should have incorporated a new station and grade separation as part of the stadium redevelopment.

This is nonsense. Merrion Gates has no land nearby. There are houses right up to the crossing on the north side on both sides of the road. Having got over the line from the south side, how do you get back on the road again?

Sydney Parade is impossible to grade seperate, as I suspect are all the others. The only option would be to drop the line into a cutting which would cost and would take a couple of years without the Dart.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

Sydney Parade has a bus route (47) plus 18 and out of service buses feeding Sandymount on occasions, so that is not local. Sandymount gate has the 18 bus route so that is not local. Landowne requires coaches and buses to be able to access the stadium. That leaves how many?

11 trains saouthbound is 22 mins in the hour 8 to 9, with 7 northbound also requires 21 mins, leaving 18 minutes for traffic in the busiest hour of the day. The gates remain closed while the trains wait at the Northbound platform which could add anoth minute meaning the gates could be left closed for nearly 50 minutes in the hour 8 to 9.

And that is now before the extra trains.

The congestion at Merrion is mentioned every morning on AA Roadwatch.

There is not necessarily going to be more than 11/12 trains southbound beyond Grand Canal Dock post DART Underground - it could remain at a similar level.

Aard

ianpresley wrote: »

[Mod]
<--snipped-->
Read the charter of the forum
-Dubhthach
[/Mod]

Attack the post, not the poster.

- Mod.

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is nonsense. Merrion Gates has no land nearby. There are houses right up to the crossing on the north side on both sides of the road. Having got over the line from the south side, how do you get back on the road again?

Sydney Parade is impossible to grade seperate, as I suspect are all the others. The only option would be to drop the line into a cutting which would cost and would take a couple of years without the Dart.

Are you telling me we can build a tunnel but can't grade separate merrion gates?

sdanseo

Half the problem with Merrion and all the other level crossings is the frankly stupid amount of time prior to the train arriving that the barriers are lowered. It can be 2 full minutes - you need about 30 seconds. DARTs there aren't going very fast at all.

If any lemmings are stupid enough to get caught in the middle, let the train hit them.

monument

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is nonsense.

After your last post, that's a bit cheeky.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Merrion Gates has no land nearby. There are houses right up to the crossing on the north side on both sides of the road. Having got over the line from the south side, how do you get back on the road again?

It's not true that there is houses "right up to the crossing" the houses are between ~16m and ~26m away from the crossing.

There's a larger amount of space on the south side -- two large traffic lanes, a traffic island, and large green verge.

As there's no station (open) near the crossing, the railway can be raised on approach of the planned underpass -- the road is lowered and the railway is raised.

There's already funding for design work -- it would not be at that stage if it was anywhere near imposable.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Sydney Parade is impossible to grade seperate, as I suspect are all the others. The only option would be to drop the line into a cutting which would cost and would take a couple of years without the Dart.

As others have said, I don't think Sydney Parade is as big of a deal as Merrion Gates.

I don't think the others would be impossible -- but very difficult, yes. Serpentine Ave (rail under), and Landsdown Road (road under, possible high limit). Sydney Parade (road under, likely one-way with a path, road layout changes with traffic restrictions) could also be done, but with Merrion Gates so close by, you could just close the Sydney Parade crossing to traffic or put a smaller underpass or an overpass for people on foot/bicycle only.

Justifying any of it is another question. I'm not sure if it it would be justified to bother with any of them but Merrion Gates and maybe Landsdown Road

Grandeeod

sdeire wrote: »

Half the problem with Merrion and all the other level crossings is the frankly stupid amount of time prior to the train arriving that the barriers are lowered. It can be 2 full minutes - you need about 30 seconds. DARTs there aren't going very fast at all.

If any lemmings are stupid enough to get caught in the middle, let the train hit them.

Take note of this.

murphaph

Indeed the likes of Merrion Gates could close much later before a train arrives. Here in Germany and even in health and safety conscious GB the gates tend to close much later. Of course half barriers (illegal in ROI) allow light jumpers an escape route. Full barriers are actually more dangerous IMO.

Sierra Oscar

sdeire wrote: »

Half the problem with Merrion and all the other level crossings is the frankly stupid amount of time prior to the train arriving that the barriers are lowered. It can be 2 full minutes - you need about 30 seconds. DARTs there aren't going very fast at all.

If any lemmings are stupid enough to get caught in the middle, let the train hit them.

The waiting times can be excessive, sometimes they close up to three minutes before a train arrives and are open for a few seconds before closing again.

However I suspect that they close that early because of the commuter trains that travel along the line. They travel far faster than the DART when not stopping at stations. Do the gates 'know' if it is a DART or Commuter train approaching?

LXFlyer

The opening/closing times of the gates are totally dependant upon the signalling and the signal locations.