Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Options
1265266268270271343

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Yes, well the NTA are great at producing daft constraints. That's what caused the initial BusConnects Network plan to be as daft as it was.

    People need to attend the online webinars, ask the necessary questions, and then make their voices heard.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Had a quick look at some drawings. I always said adding tracks between Clontarf Road and Howth J wasn't realistic so no surprised it is not proposed. I would have thought however more could be down at Clontarf Road itself, make an island platform with DARTs stopping on the Westwood side to allow another train continue through.

    I don't see the benefit in the changes at Malahide if all trains have to use the existing platforms. There is space south of the station to work with. Extend the platforms south going under the bridge and there could be a turnback platform there beside the car park. Surely allowing trains terminating in Malahide wait off the mainline would be the best solution here? Assuming the bridge span is wide enough to allow sufficient width platforms extend under, it would be a pretty straightforward job, if not, go the whole hog and replace the bridge allowing for a central terminating platform underneath.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    It is absolutely possible to add an extra track, whatever about two, between Killester and Raheny, which is where the capacity is needed to allow the Enterprise and outer suburban services overtake, and not so much around Clontarf Road.

    The problem is that the NTA, who set the constraints within which the consultants have had to work, have zero interest in the Enterprise, and Irish Rail have to go and do the work to facilitate that separately and get separate funding for it. The Irish Rail CEO is on the record stating that there will have to be additional capacity put in to facilitate the Enterprise. Given that this could also benefit the outer suburban services, it’s frustrating to see nothing in this consultation.

    The plan for Malahide allows a terminating DART proceed forward from the “down” line into a new turnback siding between the two running lines, and then when due to head south, then it can proceed directly into the “up” line platform without interfering with down services.

    It avoids conflicts and takes the train off the running lines. I don’t see the issue.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu



    page 25 of the main options report (the implication is that Darts stop at all stations, it's explicitly stated that the commuter services to Dundalk will also service all stops):

    Where there are existing DART services, nine DART services will operate in each direction to Clongriffin, with seven in each direction continuing on to Malahide. In peak hours, five DART services in each direction will extend north from the current terminus at Malahide to Drogheda MacBride Station. These will be accompanied by two DMU commuter services an hour from Dublin Connolly to Dundalk in each direction, stopping at all stations



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    There isn't space to add tracks between Killester and Raheny without massive earthworks at enormous cost and likely CPOing significant numbers of houses. It isn't a runner.

    Not having terminating trains in Malahide using the main platforms there would be preferable if it could be achieved.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Well I think that we will have to disagree on that.

    Yes there will have to be significant earthworks and stations rebuilt, and I think they can be done for one track without any CPO, but that is going to have to happen ultimately to deliver the 90 minute Enterprise.

    Otherwise everything will just trundle along at DART speed and the railway will become totally uncompetitive.

    It is a cost that will have to happen one way or another.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    If they want a quasi-high-speed Enterprise I don't think passing loops will cut it between Connolly and Malahide at least, a full extra track is required. Possibly this is why they've kicked the can down the road and left it to a future Enterprise Upgrade project.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Adding even one track without CPOs would require digging out a narrow and steep embankment and build a retaining wall, while working from said narrow and steep embankment immediately adjacent to an active rail line. There isn't space to carry that scale of works, nevermind doing so in a safe manner. There is no way large scale CPOs will happen there, its not even worth suggesting.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Well maybe you should tell that to Jim Meade as he seems to think differently and is on the record on that.

    Incidentally, isn’t that what’s planned for “The Gullet” in order to add an extra track?

    Post edited by LXFlyer on


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    For the Enterprise we are talking about an hourly train in each direction.

    For that you don’t need extra tracks the whole way, but you certainly need the ability to overtake a DART between Killester and Raheny.

    Ideally that could also be used by outer suburban services.

    There are buildings right next to the railway around Kilbarrack which would make adding extra tracks there impossible.

    Post edited by LXFlyer on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    He specifically said its possible to add tracks between Killester and Raheny without additional property?

    I'd love to see a methodology for digging out a sloping embankment from the embankment, within metres of active trains and overhead power lines. Even if you defy the laws of physics and the excavator can somehow sit on a steep slope, then also dig the same slope, how do you get trucks there to take spoil away? You can't safely work from the embankment, certainly not that close to live trains/cables, the only flat part from which you could work are the back gardens along the line.

    If we could suspend the laws of physics and do it, it would be included in DART+ Coastal North as that is the only opportunity for significant works and funding available for a very long time. The fact that additional track there doesn't seem to have been considered tells everything about the realities of actually doing it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    He is on the record as saying that there will have to be additional tracks added between Connolly and Howth Junction, something you are writing off completely as never going to happen.

    I am saying that I believe the space is there for one additional track without significant CPO, but two tracks will require CPO.

    The work would in all probability require an extended blockade to do it, but one way or another that bullet is going to have to be bitten at some point.

    For the record I’m not in any way diminishing the work that would be required, but ultimately the railway can’t deliver competitive journey times for either Intercity or outer suburban services without extra capacity between Connolly and Howth Junction.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I was talking about between Killester and Raheny, there is a several metre level change over a short distance with little or no flat space to work from. Then add in the need to stabilise the remaining higher level as you did down and the trains wizzing by and power line behind. for much of it there is less than 10m of sloping ground to work on. I think more could be done south of Killester.

    It would be intersting to see the actual wording of the comment to which you refer because you seem to be putting a lot of stock in it. Saying "there will have to be X" for Y to happen isnt a comment on the possibility or probability of X happening.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    The problem with your idea of putting the extra tracks south of Killester is that from an operational perspective you need the ability to pass north of Killester. South of that doesn’t really help as it’s too close to Connolly. Don’t get me wrong, an extended third or fourth track at some point south of Killester wouldn’t be a bad thing either.

    His comments were made made in a newspaper interview last year and Oireachtas committee meetings.

    Yes I am putting a lot of stock in it because I’ve sat down and looked at the pathing in detail.

    As I said, it’s not going to be straightforward and in all probability will require an extended engineering blockade. But to deliver the improvements outlined by Jim Meade in Enterprise journey times, then the infrastructure changes will have to happen.

    I would prefer that it happened at the same time as DART+ rather than having to do a whole set of other works.



  • Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭DoctorPan


    There was a quad tracking report at one stage part of this project and quad tracking between Fairview and Drogheda was deemed possible with minimal protrusion beyond the existing IÉ land boundary



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    "Minimal protrusion" is still taking space from gardens, some of which are not very wide but would be interesting to know the definition of "minimal". In any case, the fact it is not part of the scope of this major improvement project (and possibly the only one in many of our lifetimes) speaks to the practicalities of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Not necessarily - it depends on the constraints that the NTA set. Their track record in that record is far from good.

    They aren’t interested in the Enterprise as it is outside their control.

    I’d suggest that you are putting far too much faith in that organisation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    the Dart will be so frequent, but also susceptible to delays for various reasons (the upgrade and new stock may help, but it won't stop passengers falling ill, anti-social behaviour etc), that if you wanted a reliable high-speed service you really need at least one dedicated track (one is probably enough for an hourly service).



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,405 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Running DMUs stopping at every station on the line from dundalk is madness.

    Long term, enterprise needs to be moved to new tracks further west



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    A totally new railway line is not going to happen in either of our lifetimes, in my opinion.

    As for the DMUs, I do wonder if the all stations stopping for the DMUs is a typo and should be applied to the DART from Drogheda.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Stopping at all stations to Drogheda is madness too. They'd be better off leaving things as they are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,691 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,839 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    The proposals look to me to be about adding a few train paths but at the expense of journey times. I never liked the idea of DART beyond Malahide, electrification yes but not relatively long distance trains stopping at every stop along the way. Would be better retaining the current DART/Commuter set up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭DoctorPan



    Nah its the NTA descoping the projects to save funds and do as little as possible. Only have to look at the refusal to extend the wires to Kilcock on West and the obvious locations for new stations including Cabra on South West.


    Lack of vision and drive coming from the top stiffingly creativity and service improvements.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,630 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    IMHO, Metro North should be a quad track DART, linked to DART underground. and extended past the airport, to hit the northern Line around Rush/Lusk.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    DART+ West localised Ashtown public consultation coming soon. The stables won't have to be demolished.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭gjim


    Do any part of the DART+ plans include adding new entrances to stations (besides Connolly), does anyone know?

    There are a bunch of DART stations I can think of where the station entrance is at one end of the platforms and where a second entrance or entrances at the opposite ends of the platforms would greatly improve the utility of the station, expanding its effective catchment area and sometimes provide much better connection opportunities with bus routes.

    I would imagine improvements like this would score highly on a cost/benefit score. Also surely there are safety benefits to providing more entrance/exit capacity to allow quicker evacuation if required.

    Rail based PT that I've used in other European cities heavily exploit the cheap/easy benefits of having multiple station entrances but very few (if any) DART stations do. It's especially weird that the city centre stations don't have it: a Townsend St entrance at Tara (without waiting for ML) and a Sandwich St entrance at Pearse, a Clanwilliam Terrace entrance at GCD, etc. all seem like candidates.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,639 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    No other plans in any of the docs so far, well, other than Heuston West. There are some very obvious ones to implement around.

    There is a Townsend Street entrance to Tara Street though. Has been for years. Its just not open all the time. Extremely useful for getting to the south city centre.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    there's a new entrance to Connolly going in from Preston St. Pearse also has a newish entrance directly off Pearse St.



Advertisement