DART-Airport Spur From Clongriffin

Jack Noble

AngryLips wrote: »

Yea I find the whole concept of a Luas extension to Bray completely incomprehensible. Even the extension to Cherrywood was pushing it. Luas is poorly suited to serving the outer suburbs of the city, a task better left to Dart and suburban heavy rail services. Connectivity seems to have trump coverage here with this particular extension, thank god it's unlikely to happen. Transport planners should have been concentrating on bringing luas to new neighbourhoods instead of joining the dots on the small number of lines we have.

It is meant to be part of a Metro line - Swords to Bray - as recommended in the DTO's Platform for Change in 2001 and carried on into the NTA's 2030Vision which is currently with the Transport Minister for final approval.

PFC: http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf

2030Vision: http://www.2030vision.ie/downloads/files/en/final/draft_strategy.pdf

Here's planned network map envisaged for 2030.

Brian CivilEng

^^^^^

You know I wish someone would create a proper metro style map instead of that thing. Looks so confusing, and doesn't show how connected everywhere to is everywhere else. Seems like it was done on MS Paint for A Platform for Change and has never been substantially altered. If a final metro map could be created and the bits we have now filled in and used on all our public transport, it would make people realise why stuff like DART Underground is necessary.

dynamick

this kind of thing?
http://www.venetikidis.com/ArisV/DUBLIN_TRANSPORT_MAP_files/DublinCityCentre-AllModes_1.jpg

DWCommuter

Jack Noble wrote: »

It is meant to be part of a Metro line - Swords to Bray - as recommended in the DTO's Platform for Change in 2001 and carried on into the NTA's 2030Vision which is currently with the Transport Minister for final approval.

PFC: http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf

2030Vision: http://www.2030vision.ie/downloads/files/en/final/draft_strategy.pdf

Here's planned network map envisaged for 2030.

Can't happen as a Metro in a workable sense. And the link up to MN is still muddied water territory. PFC may have been a semi decent document, but it was lacking a DTA to implement it in full/part effectively.

The gap between the running lines on the Green line will be another eternal reminder of all that is wrong here.

BluntGuy

I read the 2030 strategy and it reads like a pile of other plans stapled together with new waffle added. Not to say a vision for 2030 isn't a worthwhile goal, but does it actually mean anything?

The MSPaint map is rubbish. Lazy, unclear and as said does nothing to highlight the benefits that any of the proposed projects may bring.

Brian CivilEng

dynamick wrote: »

this kind of thing?
http://www.venetikidis.com/ArisV/DUBLIN_TRANSPORT_MAP_files/DublinCityCentre-AllModes_1.jpg

No, not at all. That map was a case of not letting reality get in the way of something looking good. The tunnel under Trinity being a case in point, really can't see how that would work in reality without some significant demolition.

I mean that despite whether any of it will be built or not, we have had a constant idea of what the future Dublin rail map would look like, yet nobody has seen fit to update the original MS Paint job of a transport map. Irish people travel, we successfully use the mass transit systems of other cities after seeing their transit maps, surely having a proper Dublin transit map would make more people grasp what our wishlist really would achieve. Instead of abstract concepts of Metro North, DART Underground, the airport connection, tunnel from Connolly to Heuston etc. we could have a proper network map, and the gaps could slowly be filled in.

Something simple like Oslo's T-bane map:



"Oslo's new metro map by geirarne, on Flickr"

Their tunnel through the city was built in the 80's I believe, recently extended to a full ring. No one looking at that map could deny that it is the backbone for the whole system. Imagine the same for Dublin?

Aard

Incidentally, there's a great PDF through that link from the people who designed that map: http://www.civitas.no/Civitas/HiTrans2Pres.pdf

Deals with conveying different routes to the public, and how this affects uptake of services.

Wild Bill

AngryLips wrote: »

Yea I find the whole concept of a Luas extension to Bray completely incomprehensible.

If it's incomprehensible now imagine how utterly daft the original Harcourt Street line was?

Amazingly, people still mourn it's passing. :cool:

Aard

Harcourt Line had few stops. The Bray Luas on aggregate has a stop every 700m or so to town. This kind of short inter-station interval is better suited to short-distance travel.

Wild Bill

Aard wrote: »

Harcourt Line had few stops.

Indeed.

Because after Dundrum it went through empty fields. Unlike the modern Luas.

Wild Bill

Aard wrote: »

This kind of short inter-station interval is better suited to short-distance travel.

And a "short distance" is what?

One mile?
Five miles?
Ten miles?

AngryLips

It's quite obvious that, in this case, short distance means having 22 stops along a 17km stretch of track. Whereas Dart, which is far better suited to serving the outer suburbs, only has 31 stops covering 53km of track. This being one of the main reasons for its suitability over Luas. I think it's this definition of "short distance" (as against long distance) that Aard is referring to, but I'm only gathering that from having paid attention to the conversation.

dowlingm

Dundrum's a long way from the airport lads. Can we get back to the topic at hand?

Rock of Gibraltar

Is the €200m quoted for this inclusive of the cost of the re-signaling that is currently under way that is necessary to make this happen?
It's a bit disingenuous if it isn't seeing as the re-signaling was intended for another purpose.

dubhthach

Also does this €200m include the cost of rolling stock?

dowlingm

dubhthach wrote: »

Also does this €200m include the cost of rolling stock?

sure isn't there 10 grand 8200s lurking around Fairview waiting to do the job? :rolleyes:

Wild Bill

dowlingm wrote: »

sure isn't there 10 grand 8200s lurking around Fairview waiting to do the job? :rolleyes:

For the uninitiated you might share some information; what is a "grand 8200"

And why do they lurk around Fairview??

LXFlyer

dubhthach wrote: »

Also does this €200m include the cost of rolling stock?

You will not need additional rolling stock - there is sufficient capacity within the existing fleet to do it.

LXFlyer

Rock of Gibraltar wrote: »

Is the €200m quoted for this inclusive of the cost of the re-signaling that is currently under way that is necessary to make this happen?
It's a bit disingenuous if it isn't seeing as the re-signaling was intended for another purpose.

The resignalling is an ongoing separate project, that has to happen anyway, which would in turn facilitate the Airport DART were it to be approved.

The €200m would be (I believe) the cost of the spur - nothing to do with the existing resignalling works.

AngryLips

How would they run express services on a two track line with god knows how many stops between Dublin Airport and Pearse...?

bk

Last week I got the Aircoach from the Airport to Dun Laoghaire at 8pm and it only took 40 minutes!!

Do we really need this? The same journey by DART will take significantly longer and require a change.

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

How would they run express services on a two track line with god knows how many stops between Dublin Airport and Pearse...?

With reasonably intelligent pathing it could be done. Remember there would only be 4 stopping DART services an hour between Clongriffen and Connolly.

weehamster

bk wrote: »

Last week I got the Aircoach from the Airport to Dun Laoghaire at 8pm and it only took 40 minutes!!

Do we really need this? The same journey by DART will take significantly longer and require a change.

I don't think it would be 40 mins if it wasn't for the Port Tunnel . Your lucky to have a straight forward route. I'm wondering. Was there much traffic about and did the bus stop at every pick up point along the route?

---

I have to say that I don't agree with building this line simply just because its more affordable than the Metro North. There is no way the spur would have the same impact as the Metro North would. We have to stop looking for quick fixes and start to looking at the proper long term solutions.

markpb

Wild Bill wrote: »

For the uninitiated you might share some information; what is a "grand 8200" And why do they lurk around Fairview??

IIRC the 8200s are Dart units that were purchased around 2000, gave a lot of mechanical trouble and were abandoned by Irish Rail. They were left around the depot in Fairview for (I think) several years. There was a thread about it right here last year and they got a mention over on Rail Users Ireland from post 8 onwards.

bk

weehamster wrote: »

I don't think it would be 40 mins if it wasn't for the Port Tunnel . Your lucky to have a straight forward route. I'm wondering. Was there much traffic about and did the bus stop at every pick up point along the route?

Sure, it used the port tunnel and it only stopped where people wanted to get off.

But that is the point, a perfectly good service already exists that covers much the same route in equal or faster speed. So why spend 200 million on this white elephant?

cgcsb

The rail spur is unworkable. Mainly because, even after a signal upgrade there will only be room for an additional 4 trains per hour north of Connolly. The €200m figure is only for the track and electrification between Clongriffin and airport. When you include the cost of quad tracking between there and Connolly, you're looking at a cost about the same as metro north. So you're paying the same price to serve ONLY the airport. Swords, Ballymum, DCU, the matter etc. go unserved.

Also with such an indirect route, it'd take about 35-40 mins to reach Tara St., i.e. slower than the bus, rendering it utterly pointless.

Some people have been misled to believe that metro north is only for the airport. Perhaps it's the mentality of southsiders, that leads people to believe that.

a heavy rail solution to most of Ireland's transport problems is VERY obvious:

We can route trains from Cork through the Peonix park Tunnel northwards as far as liffey junction and then in a new cut and cover tunnel under Finglas. With a stop underneath the airport, the line could then continue on surface to Drogheda and join onto the Belfast mainline. The track could be built to high speed standard to allow for future upgrade. Benefits:

-a direct Belfast Central-Dublin Airport-Dublin Heuston-Cork Kent rail service.
-by removing all Belfast trains from the Northern line between Drogheda and the City Centre, you free up the track for a DART service with 2minute frequency.
-by terminating Belfast trains in Cork, and Cork trains in Belfast(the two busiest inter city routes) you free up LOADS of capacity in Connolly and Heuston.
-Drogheda-Heuston in 17 mins.
-An eventual upgrade to highspeed rail would be much simpler, Just one line in the country connecting 3-4million people with the country's largest airport.
-Cost: slightly less than Metro N

D.L.R.

cgcsb wrote: »

The rail spur is unworkable. Mainly because, even after a signal upgrade there will only be room for an additional 4 trains per hour north of Connolly. The €200m figure is only for the track and electrification between Clongriffin and airport. When you include the cost of quad tracking between there and Connolly, you're looking at a cost about the same as metro north. So you're paying the same price to serve ONLY the airport. Swords, Ballymum, DCU, the matter etc. go unserved.

Also with such an indirect route, it'd take about 35-40 mins to reach Tara St., i.e. slower than the bus, rendering it utterly pointless.

Some people have been misled to believe that metro north is only for the airport. Perhaps it's the mentality of southsiders, that leads people to believe that.

a heavy rail solution to most of Ireland's transport problems is VERY obvious:

We can route trains from Cork through the Peonix park Tunnel northwards as far as liffey junction and then in a new cut and cover tunnel under Finglas. With a stop underneath the airport, the line could then continue on surface to Drogheda and join onto the Belfast mainline. The track could be built to high speed standard to allow for future upgrade. Benefits:

-a direct Belfast Central-Dublin Airport-Dublin Heuston-Cork Kent rail service.
-by removing all Belfast trains from the Northern line between Drogheda and the City Centre, you free up the track for a DART service with 2minute frequency.
-by terminating Belfast trains in Cork, and Cork trains in Belfast(the two busiest inter city routes) you free up LOADS of capacity in Connolly and Heuston.
-Drogheda-Heuston in 17 mins.
-An eventual upgrade to highspeed rail would be much simpler, Just one line in the country connecting 3-4million people with the country's largest airport.
-Cost: slightly less than Metro N

I do like the idea of more rail capacity in north Dublin, but I also like the idea of local commuter services into the bargain, so Metro still trumps this imo. AND I'm a southsider

Generally its because I think local urban rail is more important than intercity rail right now.

Jayuu

cgcsb wrote: »

Some people have been misled to believe that metro north is only for the airport. Perhaps it's the mentality of southsiders, that leads people to believe that.

In fairness I don't think its a "southside" mentality as opposed to a very confused public. I read these threads here and even I'm not completely sure as to what transport plans for Dublin are active, being planned or have been dropped at this stage.

There are various Luas line options, a couple of Metro lines, the Interconnector, DART Underground. There seem to be so many different plans for transport in Dublin that people start to simplify things.

So Metro North becomes the Airport link for convenience sake. Of course then this causes problems because as you say people suddenly think that this is its only purpose and then are outraged by the cost of a supposed simple link. This hasn't been helped by some very perjorative media coverage as well.

cgcsb wrote: »

A heavy rail solution to most of Ireland's transport problems is VERY obvious:

We can route trains from Cork through the Peonix park Tunnel northwards as far as liffey junction and then in a new cut and cover tunnel under Finglas. With a stop underneath the airport, the line could then continue on surface to Drogheda and join onto the Belfast mainline. The track could be built to high speed standard to allow for future upgrade. Benefits:

-a direct Belfast Central-Dublin Airport-Dublin Heuston-Cork Kent rail service.
-by removing all Belfast trains from the Northern line between Drogheda and the City Centre, you free up the track for a DART service with 2minute frequency.
-by terminating Belfast trains in Cork, and Cork trains in Belfast(the two busiest inter city routes) you free up LOADS of capacity in Connolly and Heuston.
-Drogheda-Heuston in 17 mins.
-An eventual upgrade to highspeed rail would be much simpler, Just one line in the country connecting 3-4million people with the country's largest airport.
-Cost: slightly less than Metro N

Have to say that this idea sounds excellent.

cgcsb

I wasn't suggesting that the above replace metro north, after all it CAN'T since it only provides access to one of the metro north stops. Definitely Metro N is a solution to a problem, but we should look at future national rail access to the airport also.

AngryLips

cgcsb wrote: »

The €200m figure is only for the track and electrification between Clongriffin and airport. When you include the cost of quad tracking between there and Connolly, you're looking at a cost about the same as metro north.

Has quad tracking the northern line been costed? I don't think it's part of the agenda to link Dublin Airport. However, there are many arguments in favour of doing so, insofar as it would greatly increase capacity on what is one of the busiest dual track lines in the country and remove conflict between intercity and commuter services therefore reducing journey times.