DART+ (DART Expansion)

Sam Russell

It would make more sense to extend the Dart spur on through the airport and onto Broombridge. It would then connect with the western side of Dublin. Retracing the line back to Swords would be pointless - it would be better to simply allow a turn up to the north at Clongriffin or wherever it leaves the northern line. That would allow connections to Drogheda and Dundalk if they were thought useful.

Jack Noble

If you look at the 2010 Dart Underground Business Case document on the IE and NTA websites, it is clear a future Airport Dart spur off the line has been factored into planned schedules - four Darts per hour serving Pearse, SSG and Heuston, ie one every 15 minutes.

The other advantage of such a spur is that it can also be used, post electrification of the main lines for Belfast, Cork, Galway and Limerick trains to run direct services to the airport.

LXFlyer

You would never build a direct a connection off the northern line as a single track spur - that would make no sense whatsoever as it would be operationally inflexible.

It would be have to be a double track from north of Clongriffin station.

Let's be realistic about this - extending people's journey times by building an arc and diverting northern line trains is something that would just add unnecessary cost to the proposal. A terminating spur is more than adequate.

I genuinely think that coupled with DART Underground (and only if that gets built), a double track spur off the northern line from Clongriffin terminating at Dublin Airport is a viable option.

Clongriffin is designed for four platform use (three are in use) and would be the interchange point for northern line and Enterprise services.

Sam Russell

A single track spur would only be a stop-gap as it would be daft to build it for long term use for the reasons you say. Having said that, a 5 km line could be built very quickly as it is over open countryside.

It would also make sense to bring the Navan-Drogheda line back into passenger use as well. Could not cost much to automate a few level-crossing gates and paint a few gates.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

A single track spur would only be a stop-gap as it would be daft to build it for long term use for the reasons you say. Having said that, a 5 km line could be built very quickly as it is over open countryside.

It would also make sense to bring the Navan-Drogheda line back into passenger use as well. Could not cost much to automate a few level-crossing gates and paint a few gates.

Look you either build it right or not at all. Building it once as a double track spur is the only option. Otherwise you would have numerous closures to add a second track. It would be pointless to build as a single line spur.


Building any rail project like this needs operational flexibility from the word go, and not half-measures.


I'd also comment that this thread is about DART Underground - I suggest talking about Navan is a completely different topic, and not relevant.

loyatemu

not sure if this has been linked on this thread already - here's Irish Rail's proposed airport link presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/PatrickKing1/dart-link-to-dublin-airport-10182754

(still don't think its a particularly good value standalone project @ €200m)

Godge

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are quite correct. We built a lot of unecessary motorways, but we did build them. The tunnel under the Shannon at Limerick has proved totaly unecessary and cost about the same as the Dart spur, which would be more use. The state is lumbered with compensation to the private partner as not enough traffic uses the tunnel, and that applies to quite a few tolls.

It is not just about the time, it is also about connectivity and image.

The Shannon tunnel was built in the wrong place. The Shannon crossing should have been built north of Limerick, somewhere like Ardnacrusha. Building there would have put Shannon Airport within two hours of Dublin. There is an extra twenty minutes/half-hour with the detour around Limerick.

1huge1

Well the southern ring road has more purpose than just getting people to Shannon airport, it is a commuter road. But as far as I know, there are plans to make a northern ring road in limerick just as in Cork. I wouldn't expect it any time soon though.

LeinsterDub

loyatemu wrote: »

not sure if this has been linked on this thread already - here's Irish Rail's proposed airport link presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/PatrickKing1/dart-link-to-dublin-airport-10182754

(still don't think its a particularly good value standalone project @ €200m)

200 m with link to mn at the airport seems reasonable.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

200 m with link to mn at the airport seems reasonable.

We would get two of them for the cost of setting up Irish Water (400m before a single water meter was put in the ground).

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote:

If you look at the 2010 Dart Underground Business Case document on the IE and NTA websites, it is clear a future Airport Dart spur off the line has been factored into planned schedules - four Darts per hour serving Pearse, SSG and Heuston, ie one every 15 minutes.

The other advantage of such a spur is that it can also be used, post electrification of the main lines for Belfast, Cork, Galway and Limerick trains to run direct services to the airport.

Attached Images IE Dart frequencies plan post Dart Undergound.jpg[/URL] (144.4 KB, 44 views)




The extent of the Irish Rail fantasies about this tunnel are rather worrying. According to the above, they propose that there will be 19 peak hour trains between Howth Junction and Fairview, heading into the city.

These will include three diesel services from Dundalk (or north of it, i.e. the Enterprise) per peak hour. These will not stop at every station. These can, apparently, be accomodated alongside the 16 services per peak hour which will stop at every station in that section.

Unlikely, you might think.

Even more unlikely if you factor in the 16 trains coming out of the tunnel at those times, and crossing the southbound tracks, and the trains to Dundalk (and beyond), coming out of town at that time.

I've not, so far, been aware of any proposed flyover for the connection between the Northern line and the proposed link to the tunnel entrance.

Even if there is one planned, such a timetable would be challenging.

Without it, such a timetable is unfeasible.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Attached Images IE Dart frequencies plan post Dart Undergound.jpg[/URL] (144.4 KB, 44 views)




The extent of the Irish Rail fantasies about this tunnel are rather worrying. According to the above, they propose that there will be 19 peak hour trains between Howth Junction and Fairview, heading into the city.

These will include three diesel services from Dundalk (or north of it, i.e. the Enterprise) per peak hour. These will not stop at every station. These can, apparently, be accomodated alongside the 16 services per peak hour which will stop at every station in that section.

Unlikely, you might think.

Even more unlikely if you factor in the 16 trains coming out of the tunnel at those times, and crossing the southbound tracks, and the trains to Dundalk (and beyond), coming out of town at that time.

I've not, so far, been aware of any proposed flyover for the connection between the Northern line and the proposed link to the tunnel entrance.

Even if there is one planned, such a timetable would be challenging.

Without it, such a timetable is unfeasible.

You may wish to inform IE management and engneers of this -- as they believe it is possible.

In fact, so certain are they that it is, IE and the Government are investing €120m in a signalling system to do just that.

http://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/city-centre-resignalling

The project will provide Iarnród Éireann with the ability to operate 20 trains in both directions through the Howth Junction to Grand Canal Dock line, which caters for Howth DARTs, Malahide DARTs, Northern Commuter trains, Belfast Enterprise services, Sligo Intercity and Maynooth commuter services, as well as other services in the Connolly to Grand Canal Dock area. Signalling on train lines regulate the safe movement of trains, and currently the system’s capacity stands at 12 trains per hour each way.

But, sure what would they they know about these things...?

murphaph

19 trains in one direction including outer suburban and intercity does seem optimistic to me without a third track.

Jack Noble

murphaph wrote: »

19 trains in one direction including outer suburban and intercity does seem optimistic to me without a third track.

IE and the Govt have invested €120m in a signalling system that they tell us allows for 20 trains per hour in each direction between Howth Junction and Grand Canal Dock -- should we not at least wait until it is fully operational to see if that is the case before passing judgement?

Beyond that, a third and even fourth track will be required for additional services such as the longer term plans to run frequent, electrified, intercity services from Cork, Limerick and Galway to the airport. But then that is already part of the NTA's 2030 Vision strategy for public transport in the GDA for 2030 and beyond.

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft_Transport_Strategy_for_the_Greater_Dublin_Area_2011-2030.pdf

Chapter 10, pages 11-12

Northern rail corridor

One of the key deficiencies with the current DART network is its need to share track space with other longer distance services. This requires comparatively large time intervals between DART services, particularly in the peak hours, to accommodate the running of these longer distance services. In order to achieve the full benefits of the DART Underground project, additional tracks to separate intercity, regional and DART heavy rail services will be required on the northern and south western corridor approaches to DART Underground. This
will facilitate faster and more frequent intercity, regional and DART services on this corridor.

The provision of additional tracks between Connolly and Balbriggan, or a point south of Balbriggan, would facilitate the required service segregation between DART and other services. In addition, it is intended that the electrification of the Northern Line will be extended as far as Balbriggan, to enable the future extension of DART operations to Balbriggan. This will also facilitate a potential future extension of electrification north of Balbriggan.

The potential for a twin track rail link extending from the Northern Line to serve Dublin Airport, and capable of being extended further northwards, has been identified. This proposal will be subject to further assessment for its possible implementation, including consideration of the timing of other related projects and an economic assessment.

murphaph

It will get 20 through an hour but only if the non-stopping trains crawl along to maintain separation (IMO)

LXFlyer

I don't think that the demand is quite there at the moment for 20 trains an hour even at the peak, but probably more like 14-15 an hour for the moment.

Sam Russell

If they are proposing that Bray to Connolly will be a train every 6 mins in each direction, then the level crossing gates between Merrion Gates and Lansdown might as well stay shut.

Jack Noble

Sam Russell wrote: »

If they are proposing that Bray to Connolly will be a train every 6 mins in each direction, then the level crossing gates between Merrion Gates and Lansdown might as well stay shut.

The NTA strategy envisages closure of level crossings 'north of Bray'. My reading of that is all LCs between Connolly and Bray, including Merrion Gates. Dublin City Council was allocated €100,000 in 2012 to develop a plan to close Merrion Gates.

murphaph

Yep. Closure of all those gates and the ones on the Maynooth line are basically a pre-requisite for DU. No point in building all this capacity if it's then restricted by level crossings.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

I don't think that the demand is quite there at the moment for 20 trains an hour even at the peak, but probably more like 14-15 an hour for the moment.

I think one of the points being broadly discussed is not what the current capacity is, but whether IE can really deliver on those figures if the interconnector is built.

It is one thing achieving 20 trains per hour across a bottleneck (the loopline bridge) where all trains stop at all stations. It is another where you have a stretch of 5 stations with most trains stopping at all stations, and the others stopping at none. This is the proposed situation with the interconnector.

I've never read that there is a flyover planned for the link between the interconnector and the Northern line. I strongly suspect that gradient issues may prevent such an arrangement. (You'd be basically going from several metres under the river to a line which can clear an electrified railway in a rather short space - I haven't looked at it in a while, I'm afraid, but I do remember looking at the maths of it and it seemed unlikely).

If there is no flyover, then those 16 southbound electric trains peel off, and the way is then apparently clear for the southbound Dundalk Arrows and the Enterprise (which have trundled along for five stations behind those trains going into the interconnector), to press on without hindrance into Dublin.

Except, they've now got to negotiate a line going directly across their path, which is carrying sixteen trains an hour coming out of the tunnel.

It could indeed be a very poor arrangement for the Dundalk Arrow and Enterprise services.

In the absence of a flyover, the above figures are not going to be achieved.

I have said on this board many times that tunnel throughput can only be guaranteed if there are extra platforms at the Spencer Dock station, to allow trains from the West of Dublin to turn back. The situation on the Northern line should be basically irrelevant to the tunnel.

murphaph

In the longer term I think adding at least one track from Fairview to Howth is inevitable. I think the same for the Maynooth line out as far as Clonsilla. A flyover is possible for the northern line. You should see how steep some of the flyovers here in Berlin are.

monument

murphaph wrote: »

In the longer term I think adding at least one track from Fairview to Howth is inevitable. I think the same for the Maynooth line out as far as Clonsilla. A flyover is possible for the northern line. You should see how steep some of the flyovers here in Berlin are.

In the longer term, we need to have vision.

Cork-Dublin Heuston-Dublin Airport-Belfast.

TheBandicoot

Local opposition in East Wall will not allow a flyover.

It is worth noting as well that a grade separated junction is planned at the Inchicore end.

murphaph

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Local opposition in East Wall will not allow a flyover

well, even if the state is prepared to allow the interests of a few dozen residents to take priority over the interests of hundreds of thousands of commuters then there's more than one way to skin that particular cat. They could thread the down line (assuming down from the tunnel is towards Belfast) from the tunnel UNDER the existing mainline and come up west of the mainline and put another bridge span over the Tolka. They'd need retaining walls of course but nothing you don't see all over the world. It can be grade separated and it will likely have to be at some stage if we're to get the real value out of the other infrastructure. A few local NIMBYs or not.

A Greedy Algorithm

Can someone tell me if this is just a proposed project or is it actually going ahead? Its a long thread!

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think one of the points being broadly discussed is not what the current capacity is, but whether IE can really deliver on those figures if the interconnector is built.

It is one thing achieving 20 trains per hour across a bottleneck (the loopline bridge) where all trains stop at all stations. It is another where you have a stretch of 5 stations with most trains stopping at all stations, and the others stopping at none. This is the proposed situation with the interconnector.

I've never read that there is a flyover planned for the link between the interconnector and the Northern line. I strongly suspect that gradient issues may prevent such an arrangement. (You'd be basically going from several metres under the river to a line which can clear an electrified railway in a rather short space - I haven't looked at it in a while, I'm afraid, but I do remember looking at the maths of it and it seemed unlikely).

If there is no flyover, then those 16 southbound electric trains peel off, and the way is then apparently clear for the southbound Dundalk Arrows and the Enterprise (which have trundled along for five stations behind those trains going into the interconnector), to press on without hindrance into Dublin.

Except, they've now got to negotiate a line going directly across their path, which is carrying sixteen trains an hour coming out of the tunnel.

It could indeed be a very poor arrangement for the Dundalk Arrow and Enterprise services.

In the absence of a flyover, the above figures are not going to be achieved.

I have said on this board many times that tunnel throughput can only be guaranteed if there are extra platforms at the Spencer Dock station, to allow trains from the West of Dublin to turn back. The situation on the Northern line should be basically irrelevant to the tunnel.

Why will a flyover be needed?

Under the current IE plans, only four trains per hour (3x Dundalk plus 1 Enterprise) will be moving through that junction in each direction to and from Connolly and with Dart headways of 3 to 4 minutes, there is plenty of time for those four trains to pass through safely.

I was in Switzerland recently and the number of train movements in and around Zurich make the Irish rail network and that planned post-Dart Underground look like a Hornby train set. Even small towns had busier movements through them than the Dublin network.

Lucerne, a city smaller than Cork, has a main railway station busier and with more trains movements in and out per hour than Heuston, Connolly and Pearse combined. Other trains moved in and out of the station and through at grade junctions ahead of the trains I was on with ease.

It's really not an issue given modern signalling and timetable management.

Grade separation at West Road will only be required when they add third and fourth tracks. And that's in the longer term, probably post-2030 when the mainlines will be electrified to allow for faster and more frequent intercity trains which also serve the airport.

lxflyer wrote: »

I don't think that the demand is quite there at the moment for 20 trains an hour even at the peak, but probably more like 14-15 an hour for the moment.

It's not. Those plans are for post-Dart Underground and towards 2030. We are looking early to mid-2020s at the earliest before IE will run 16 Darts and four intercity trains per hour on the Northern line.

monument wrote: »

In the longer term, we need to have vision.

Cork-Dublin Heuston-Dublin Airport-Belfast.

Believe it or not, there are some people in IE, NTA and NIR/Translink with that sort of vision.

Unfortunately, the politicians in both jurisdictions can't see beyond the next election.

And that's before you even consider the mandarins in the departments of finance in Dublin, Belfast and London.

Ironically though, it's the Belfast-Dublin-Cork line potential that is being used by the Govt to secure EU funding for DartU under the TEN-T programme.

With a bit of vision, political will and long-term planning and funding, there is no reason why Dublin Airport cannot become a hub on the rail network and, for example, Aer Lingus and Irish Rail can thus offer a single combined flight and rail fare for passengers into and out of DUB to/from anywhere on the intercity network. Lufthansa and Deutsche Bahn do just that now in Germany.

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Local opposition in East Wall will not allow a flyover.

It is worth noting as well that a grade separated junction is planned at the Inchicore end.

Local opposition in East Wall is more down to having to endure the DartU works for six years and, in their view, receive no benefits from it because they are smack bang in the middle between Clontarf and the planned Docklands station. I wouldn't be surprised to see their opposition bought off with the promise of a future station around West Road.

As for the grade separation at Inchicore, that's a very different situation. That section of line has already been four-tracked because there are many more train movements per hour as it is into and out of Heuston. And that will only increase post-DartU.

Jack Noble

A Greedy Algorithm wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is just a proposed project or is it actually going ahead? Its a long thread!

Dart Underground has a railway order (planning permission) and is ready to proceed as soon as the government can fund it.

Currently, the govt is seeking to secure available EU funding, plus long-term private financing, alongside funding from its own future capital budgets. The cost of the entire project is in the region of €4billion.

The project will be considered for the next Capital Programme post-2016 and a decision will be made next year on whether DartU will be included.

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

You misunderstand the role of ABP.

I've been thinking about this post for some time, and I have already posted that I clearly do misunderstand ABP's role in the planning process re the metro and interconnector.

I understand that ABP has statutory duties. There are things which they must do. But, as the highest planning authority in the country, there are, occasionally things which they can do, outside of their statutory obligations.

If one organisation comes to ABP with an East-West high capacity line, costing in total around 4 bilion, and another comes along with a high capacity line costing around 3 bilion, both huge amounts of money, it's obviously time for ABP to be on their toes. These two projects must connect, but yet there is obviously conflicting evidence about the interchange options between the two.

The ABP response was to say that it "was a national transport policy requirement that the interchange be at St. Stephen's Green".

I haven't found anywhere where that was stated by either the RPA or IE.

The statute didn't bar ABP from asking questions about the obvious discrepancies relating the interchange, which they didn't, and nor did it require ABP to make a statement about government policy on the interchange, which they did.

I think further analysis is required.

Aard

There is not as much of a "must-do / can-do" dichotomy as you think within ABP. It's pretty clear what they both can and must do at all times. The entire development management process is governed strictly by statute. Everything is rigorously done in accordance, ultimately, with the law. As such, Planning Authorities and the Bord are loathe to make any decision that would leave them open to being taken to court. Planning Judicial Review is not something the Bord wants to get involved with. So these "occasional" things that they "can do", as you put it, do not really exist. Such discretion cannot be given to the Bord.

The Bord also doesn't concern itself with the cost of a project. Again, it's black and white. Either something is SID or it isn't. (I'm using SID as a proxy for "really expensive things".)

The Bord (as are Planning Authorities) is required to state all policies and objectives relating to the project.

As far as I can tell, ABP did their job correctly. But then again, I'm not a High Court Judge.

Just FYI, it's entirely possible for a civilian to take a Planning Judicial Review case.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've been thinking about this post for some time, and I have already posted that I clearly do misunderstand ABP's role in the planning process re the metro and interconnector.

Yes. You do, and still do based on that post.