DART-Airport Spur From Clongriffin

D.L.R.

cgcsb wrote: »

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.

Indeed, but I think a mainline rail tunnel under the streets of Dublin is frankly beyond this state. Sorry to say it.

Maybe if the French make good on their promise to invade...

cgcsb

D.L.R. wrote: »

Indeed, but I think a mainline rail tunnel under the streets of Dublin is frankly beyond this state. Sorry to say it.

Agreed. Incompetence is the national language.

LXFlyer

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 would beg to differ - it is perfectly technically feasible if you assume the following:

Howth/Howth Junction served by a shuttle - no longer served (except at peak) by direct DARTs to/from the city centre and that Malahide would be served by Northern Line services off-peak and at peak time with additional DART services.

Therefore all off-peak DARTs would go to the airport - that would require the existing service levels, with some of the extra paths being used for the express services which would be need to be pathed in front of a stopping DART.

I'd reckon you'd be looking at a journey time between the Airport and Tara Street of about 28 minutes for a stopping service, and about 23 minutes for a service calling only at Connolly. You could certainly path 2 of those an hour.

cgcsb

AngryLips wrote: »

Has quad tracking the northern line been costed? I don't think it's part of the agenda to link Dublin Airport.

realistically it'd have to be done for the airport link, there's no spare capacity as is. The cost of property acquisition alone is enough to set one's head spinning.

We're getting bogged down in considering what sort of cheap quick fix to apply to our broken system, when there's just no getting around the fact that we NEED DARTu, we need Metro N(although with less urgency than DARTu). coming up with ever more inventive ways to avoid the reality of the 1975 DRT plan is just avoiding the inevitable.

We need stop moanig and just go with it. If there's not enough money, cancel the millions of pot hole filling excursions on the back roads of nowhere, stop the subsidy to the Western Railway Corridor, wise up and spend the money where it's needed, not where the parish pump is.

cgcsb

lxflyer wrote: »

I would beg to differ - it is perfectly technically feasible if you assume the following:

Howth/Howth Junction served by a shuttle - no longer served (except at peak) by direct DARTs to/from the city centre and that Malahide would be served by Northern Line services off-peak and at peak time with additional DART services.

Therefore all off-peak DARTs would go to the airport - that would require the existing service levels, with some of the extra paths being used for the express services which would be need to be pathed in front of a stopping DART.

I'd reckon you'd be looking at a journey time between the Airport and Tara Street of about 28 minutes for a stopping service, and about 23 minutes for a service calling only at Connolly. You could certainly path 2 of those an hour.

What you suggest is cutting existing services, creating an equal journey time to aircoach, serving only ONE new stop(The Airport) and spening over €200m in the process. We'd be better off leaving it the way it is for free.

Pete_Cavan

cgcsb wrote: »

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.

Why not incorporate MN into your idea by building Glasnevin Junction having MN go here instead of Drumcondra. MN could still serve all the same stops (with the exception of Drumcondra) so you get all the benefits of MN, the benefits you outlined above, as well as opening up the Docklands line (for what Im not sure) and do away with the need for Luas BXD. Perhaps even quadtrack the line north of Griffith Avenue (its either Cut & Cover or above ground) to bypass stations (DCU, Ballymun, Northwood & Dardistown) and allow the Belfast-Dublin Airport-Dublin Heuston-Cork trains to avoid unnecessary stops (in Dublin at least).

Total crayoning I know, so perhaps this should be moved to here

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

What you suggest is cutting existing services, creating an equal journey time to aircoach, serving only ONE new stop(The Airport) and spening over €200m in the process. We'd be better off leaving it the way it is for free.

I am pointing out that it is perfectly feasible to do it. You said it wasn't.

Service patterns would have to change, such as Howth being served by a shuttle, but is that such a bad thing?

The core product of Howth Junction-Bray would not change in any way.

cgcsb

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why not incorporate MN into your idea by building Glasnevin Junction having MN go here instead of Drumcondra. MN could still serve all the same stops (with the exception of Drumcondra) so you get all the benefits of MN, the benefits you outlined above, as well as opening up the Docklands line (for what Im not sure) and do away with the need for Luas BXD. Perhaps even quadtrack the line north of Griffith Avenue (its either Cut & Cover or above ground) to bypass stations (DCU, Ballymun, Northwood & Dardistown) and allow the Belfast-Dublin Airport-Dublin Heuston-Cork trains to avoid unnecessary stops (in Dublin at least).

Total crayoning I know, so perhaps this should be moved to here

Problems:

-Metro and Heavy(with the possibilty of future high speed) rail are incompatible

-Drumcondra station is required to interchange with the Maynooth line.

-If you were to quad track underground, it'd make no difference if you just built both seperately

Also I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "opening up the Docklands line" Which line is "the docklands line"?

cgcsb

lxflyer wrote: »

I am pointing out that it is perfectly feasible to do it. You said it wasn't.

You misunderstand the word "feasible". It is entirely POSSIBLE to build such a line and operate upto 4 trains an hour(absolute max) while cutting services to other areas and spending €200m euro for a service that'd be inferior to current bus services. However that would not be FEASIBLE.

possible and feasible are not the same thing. practical and feasible would be more closely related in the English language.

Wild Bill

cgcsb wrote: »

Agreed. Incompetence is the national language.

Strongly disagree with that: the NRA have done a tremendous job over the past decade; the Luas lines are clinically efficient.

It is Irish Rail/CIE, Local Authorities and Govt Depts whose language is incompetence.

And the endless objections and squabbling (including on sites like this) passionately arguing for "my favourite solution or nothing!"

Too much consultation; objections, chat, waffle. Not enough just doing and ignoring the whines of the masses who think they have a better plan.

In Ireland our hyper-democracy comes at a huge price in infrastructural terms. :cool:

cgcsb

Wild Bill wrote: »

Strongly disagree with that: the NRA have done a tremendous job over the past decade; the Luas lines are clinically efficient.

I tend to agree, luas is run effeciently, despite not having joined up lines(the government's fault). In fact it is under designed, not enough capacity, something we'll have to address in the very immediate future.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

You misunderstand the word "feasible". It is entirely POSSIBLE to build such a line and operate upto 4 trains an hour(absolute max) while cutting services to other areas and spending €200m euro for a service that'd be inferior to current bus services. However that would not be FEASIBLE.

possible and feasible are not the same thing. practical and feasible would be more closely related in the English language.

I'd respectfully suggest that you stop playing with semantics and giving me language lessons. Feasible = Capable of being done, which this is. It is certainly not "unworkable" as you suggest.

I'm not getting into the politics of whether this is more desireable than Metro North or not - I am dealing with what the infrastructure of that railway line can deliver.

Post DASH 2 the infrastructure will be more than capable of delivering the current 15 minute DART service from the Airport to Bray or Greystones, with peaktime extra DARTs to/from Malahide and Howth, and a half-hourly limited stop DART service between the city and the airport, the current outer suburban service levels plus an hourly Enterprise.

Yes it means Howth is served by a shuttle off-peak but with no reduction in overall service levels, and Malahide/Portmarnock could probably be served perfectly adequately by the outer suburban services off-peak.

None of this requires quad tracking.

Now whether this is preferable to Metro North is an entirely different question.

Cathaoirleach

lxflyer wrote: »

Now whether this is preferable to Metro North is an entirely different question.

..with a very simple answer: NO

cgcsb

lxflyer wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest that you stop playing with semantics and giving me language lessons. Feasible = Capable of being done, which this is. It is certainly not "unworkable" as you suggest.

ok, so I'll change my statement to "practical" instead of feasible, would that sound better?

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm not getting into the politics of whether this is more desireable than Metro North or not - I am dealing with what the infrastructure of that railway line can deliver.

I don't think that anyone could possibly argue that it is, given the fact that NONE of the benefits of Metro North can be delivered by this project, except for a jammers DART every 15 mins serving ONE of the proposed MEtro North stops, that may take longer than a bus, result in a lesser service for other areas and add MORE traffic to the already over congested loop line bridge

AND

we have to pay €200mil AT LEAST, for the privilege of a worse service. It's sort of a no brainer really.

dubhthach

cgcsb wrote: »

I tend to agree, luas is run effeciently, despite not having joined up lines(the government's fault). In fact it is under designed, not enough capacity, something we'll have to address in the very immediate future.

It helps that Luas isn't operated on a day-to-day basis by a semi-state that is highly unionised.

1huge1

I agree the Luas is a great system, very well run, and I imagine that is mostly thanks to the fact that it is run by the French multinational Veoila.

However, people should not forget that it is not a long distance public transport system, trams are only effective so far outside the city, further than that, heavy rail is needed.

dowlingm

Um - LUAS is unionised, and the company gave up no-strike in the last collective agreement.

As for 4 track, we've been over this. A look at Bing Maps will show how close massive amounts of residential is to the track between Fairview and Howth Junction. Shaving the embankments might get you three but it's hard to see 4, and it will be massively disruptive to stations etc. plus the inevitable appeal after appeal as people fight the increased noise and overshadowing in service not to mention the construction impacts such as jackhammering and removal of mature trees.

The trickiest part of the whole affair is where the Connolly and Fairview trackage pinches down to two tracks and North Wall joins, which has to be redone for Interconnector anyway. If Dempsey had got off his ass and built Navan-Dunboyne, then North Wall traffic (Tara) could avoid that area allowing disconnection of the junction for rebuild/expansion. If the airport project could be charged with the rebuild, that shaves a bit off Interconnector's budget.

Warning: large PDF - see right hand side.

Wild Bill

dubhthach wrote: »

It helps that Luas isn't operated on a day-to-day basis by a semi-state that is highly unionised.

Indeed.

The worst possible thing is to have anything managed by unsackable de-facto Civil Servants - as is the case with CIE and it's subsidiaries.

The Luas efficiency has nothing to do with French ownership and everything to do with it's private sector culture.

BluntGuy

This may not be the place for it, but there was some discussion of Integrated Fares/Maps as well as the possibility of the airport link in this committee meeting:

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/TRJ/2011/07/26/00005.asp

Nothing hugely interesting though.

Jack Noble

BluntGuy wrote: »

This may not be the place for it, but there was some discussion of Integrated Fares/Maps as well as the possibility of the airport link in this committee meeting:

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/TRJ/2011/07/26/00005.asp

Nothing hugely interesting though.

This is the most interesting quote, IMHO, from Hugh Creegan, deputy chief executive officer and director of transport planning and investment at the NTA:

Mr. Hugh Creegan: I will begin by responding to Deputy Dooley. There has been a substantial engagement between the National Transport Authority and the Department of Transport. We have worked in conjunction with the Department to examine various scenarios. We have considered what would happen if certain amounts of money were available. The Department is aware of the various permutations and their implications. We are confident that the right result will emerge from that process.

I wonder what exactly he means by the "right result" - considering Metro North and West and Dart Underground are the centrepieces of the 20-year NTA strategy?

AngryLips

In fairness, of the options on the table only Dart spur to the airport is NOT part of NTA strategy. I'm convinced it will be BXD.

cgcsb

I'm hoping and praying that if/when the government goes ahead with BXD (this sept most likely) ABP will insist that they build the station box for MetroN O'Connell along with it, so that when metro has the funds, we don't have to rip up the luas tracks to build it.

Aard

Also by building the station box, there's an implied commitment to commence MN at some point.

cgcsb

well the construction of metro north is pretty much a certainty and has been since 1975, the only question is when will Paddy get off his back side and do it, hopefully it wont take longer than 50 years from the original proposal, i.e. before 2025

AngryLips

Isn't MN intended to built using cut and cover along O'Connell Street? Meaning that it won't be possible to go ahead with it without demolishing BXD?

L1011

AngryLips wrote: »

Isn't MN intended to built using cut and cover along O'Connell Street? Meaning that it won't be possible to go ahead with it without demolishing BXD?

No.

However parts of the station box likely will need C&C...

cgcsb

AngryLips wrote: »

Isn't MN intended to built using cut and cover along O'Connell Street? Meaning that it won't be possible to go ahead with it without demolishing BXD?

correct, which is why ABP should insist on doing that work first.

Transportuser09

Aard wrote: »

Also by building the station box, there's an implied commitment to commence MN at some point.

Maybe. But wasn't the "temporary" Docklands station an implied commitment to DU? They'll probably make allowances for future projects but I dont think thats a guarantee.

AngryLips

...but then what will happen is that after BXD is built there will be some piece, most likely in the Independent, about how the Government wasted millions building a station box under O'Connell Street for a line that might or might not happen. Think controversy over Cherrywood Luas 'future stops' or separation between directional tracks on the Green Line to facilitate a future metro or the fact that Green and Red lines never joined up to begin with. It'll be followed up by some rantings on the radio about incompetency and a minimum five page thread on here by us all using it as a stick to beat the Government with.

L1011

AngryLips wrote: »

minimum five page thread on here by us all using it as a stick to beat the Government with.

Unlikely to see any of the regular posters here attacking the government for ensuring future works don't cause massive disruption. Its happened many times before, albeit not quite on the scale of a full station box.

Luas lines put in place on new roads before the extension had started, part of the ramp for a flyover put in in Cork when there was other work being put in, "lanes to nowhere" put in at the former end of the N4 DC in Sligo and so on. All were seen as good things by the main type of regular poster here.

Carriageway spacing on roads is the only reason the M50 Upgrade took 2 years rather than half a decade too, there were about three underbridges that needed widening and that's all - don't think anyone criticises the track spacing on the Green Line for similar reasons!