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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

DART+ (DART Expansion)

1199200202204205217

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Another Dart project about to disappear into the hole that is ABP. It will be lucky to emerge out of ABP within 3 years, let alone be completed. What a joke.

    And still no update on Dart+ West. There was talk of a Railway Order being granted in February and not a word since.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/05/21/government-pursues-plan-to-extend-dart-services-to-drogheda/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Nothing really new about this. It has been the intention for some time to extend the wires to Drogheda.

    It should be relatively straightforward, and the planning issues should be minimal. But of course never underestimate the dysfunctional planning and appeals system.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    I presume that this is the planning to extend the electrification? The BEMUs will probably be in service to Drogheda before then.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Yes, and when the electrification is done, the BEMUs can be cascaded to other routes, or maybe some of them used for Drogheda-Dundalk,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Malahide to Drogheda will not be electrified in 3 years. Sorry but that is a fantasy completely outside the realms of fact. A railway order has yet to be submitted for DART+ Coastal North and DART+ West is waiting 2 years now on a railway order. We can only expect more farce and bumbling.

    There might be BEMUS in 3 years but the route will certainly not be electrified



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    I'd hope that we don't need to wait until 2027 for just the BEMUs! That part surely wouldn't need planning? Or would it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,115 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    they're due to start being delivered by the end of this year, and then entering service by Autumn 2025. So I'd imagine a gradual increase in Drogheda services using BEMUs (though they'll also be replacing diesel sets that are going to moved elsewhere).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,975 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    This is the Minister getting cabinet approval for the railway order to be submitted to ABP, as required by the public spending code.



  • Registered Users Posts: 823 ✭✭✭spillit67


    This should be an issue at this election but it is telling that it isn’t.

    The slowness in getting things through ABP is killing infrastructure development and is completely unacceptable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭Ireland trains


    Is nearly 2.5 years from consultation to a railway order not very slow?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,546 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    I read from one of the papers today that the planning decision for Dart+ West to Maynooth & M3 Parkway was meant to be due in the coming months. Is that decision realistic in this timeframe or is it going to be hampered with more delays?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,164 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Article may have been poorly worded. It says “completed within 3 years” and “new battery electric DART carriages by 2026” but these are two different things.
    The latter refers to battery trains that won’t use wires. The former means after they receive planning permission (and haven’t even applied yet) they will be finished construction after 3 years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Perhaps it might start construction in 3 years



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    In the coming months? This is fairly nebulous. It's coming up on 2 years already. I've said it many times we cannot continue this way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭Ireland trains


    Not sure whether this was already posted, was interesting to see some info on plans for costal south.
    https://issuu.com/railindustry/docs/dart_presentation_-_no_videos.pptx?ff&experiment=previewReaderTestMode,new-bff-video



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,115 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭pigtown


    Have plans for Heuston West Station been released? It would be ideal if access was possible from the Clancy Quay development so that Kilmainham, Islandbridge and even Chapelizod could be brought into the DART catchment



  • Registered Users Posts: 26 Bebra


    It is being looked at as part of the Heuston Masterplan. As is pedestrian & cycling access across the existing railway bridge and access from St. John's Road.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,213 ✭✭✭goingnowhere




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,115 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    curved platforms?

    a covered travelator from the main station would be a good addition here.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭danfrancisco83


    Three years. https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/310286

    Three years to upgrade a few level crossings. Three months would have been too long. What hope does Dart+ West of getting past ABP before the year is out?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six


    They can’t even keep escalators running at Connolly. Good luck to a travelator.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,164 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Maybe. Last time I was at Connolly coming down the escalator some yob at the bottom deliberately pressed the emergency stop button and walked away. When you get random antisocial behaviour like this, it’s hard to keep escalators running.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭OisinCooke


    I take it that in terms of the 5 new stations encompassing the DART+ Project, Heuston West is to be provided as part of SW, Spencer Dock and Glasnevin as part of W and then Ballyfermot/Kylemore and Cabra as separate projects…?
    Upgrades to Connolly seem to be going under the radar too but makes a lot of sense to have a Preston Street entrance further up Amiens Street - almost a separate DART/Suburban platforms entrance.
    I’m most excited about Spencer Dock - a huge upgrade from the current Docklands station with a direct Luas connection right outside AND provision for DART Underground being considered… is this finally a sign of joined up thinking and infrastructure futureproofing from the NTA…??



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    No provisions for Dart Underground at Spencer Dock unfortunately. Other than that, the proposals for that station are fantastic and will be a huge asset for the city. Hopefully new bridges across the Liffey can be built soon which will connect both sides of the docks there.

    Preston Street entrance at Connolly, including the plans to open up the arches for shops etc, are also fantastic. Unfortunately, poor planning on the C2CC route removed the bus stop right outside Preston Street, but kept the stops closer to Seville Place (North Circular), which is not ideal for a direct connection.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭OisinCooke


    I presume though they can just dive the centre two tracks to keep going beyond the station…? Although they mightn’t be able to get deep enough to clear the bottom of the Liffey in the 200 metres between the station and the river… Still it wouldn’t be too hard to just sink the middle two tracks by a few metres on the approach and just have them lower in the station before continuing into the tunnel. I’m sure either way it’s an easy enough fix when they eventually get around to DART Underground. And I think yes, a few new bridges, pedestrian and road based, would definitely do very well there.

    Shame about the bus stop being taken away outside Preston Street but I presume it can be added back in if needs be when the time comes…? Would be a very handy addition



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    There's ways that it could be done, some of which may be easier than others, but at the moment, in the current plans, there is nothing that could be construed as forward planning for DU.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Unfortunately it's not an easy fix at all. The conflict was well flagged in option selection reports. The "simple" fix is to "temporarily" relocate the station back to its current location and dig the station and approach tracks deeper.

    The proposed platform levels are 5m below ground, but the Luas Station has a substation also 5m below ground. To clear the substation, the tracks would need to start descending several 100metres further north, as was planned when DU was envisioned.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭OisinCooke


    Ahh ok never mind then, I take back my water comment about the NTA displaying some joined up thinking - they’ve characteristically shot themselves in the proverbial foot - again… Back to the drawing board then…



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Just to be fair to others on this point (it's been debated a number of times), there are solutions to this issue.

    Temporarily relocating the station, to dig down deeper, is indeed an option. I struggle to see that happening given the level of disruption it would create, though others disagree and believe it would be worthwhile in the long run.

    There is also plenty of space nearby in the large Irish Rail railyards in East wall. Or perhaps a tunnel could simply continue further north and join the Northern line in Clontarf Golf Club for example (which is being considered for redevelopment).

    I'm keen to find out if ABP will mention it when they issue a decision on Dart+ West. Any day now..... 😬🙈



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,115 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    there's already been a veeery extensive discussion of the conflicts between Docklands Nua and the dart tunnel, really no need to restart it. Dart Underground is effectively cancelled, it's no more than a notional possible future project for after we're all long dead.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Yes except that Glasnevin station will not be built as part of DART+ West, it will be part of the metrolink railway order.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six


    Don't worry. They'll just get the contractor back to dig it up and add a new stop.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six


    Is there any update on developments at Clontarf Golf Club? I'm sure MKN would love to get their hands on those grounds. They're already using part of it for a compound while working on a development on Collins Avenue.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    A DART tunnel may be a "notional future project", but I do expect the ABP inspectors to push IÉ on why the submitted station design effectively prevents any future cross-river rail tunnel without either a massive disruption or orphaning of the new Spencer Dock station.

    DU as originally proposed may be dead, but it's not realistic to assume that there will never, ever be any DART extension within Dublin City Centre. Extension within the city core will need a tunnel, and this is one of the very few places in the city centre where such a tunnel could emerge.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭pigtown


    Is such a question in ABP's remit? I doubt it is



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Haha after our success in North Strand, we can make it happen!! They started digging up that section of new cycleway/parking last week in North Strand, just FYI.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Nothing I've heard for a long time. My worry would be, that without a plan for future DU or equivalent, that site will be developed on and wasted as an option.

    There was talk in February of a decision imminent on Dart+West, which obviously hasn't happened. I do wonder if Spencer Dock and DU conflict is a part of that delay, but it could be any number of things....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    At this point I would prefer a Lucan to Ringsend metro instead of DART U.

    Also need a Tallaght to Coolock metro to have a complete network.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    It is. Inspectors can and do request clarifications and additional documents - it's unusual for it not to happen. An obvious question regarding Spencer Dock would be to ask how this station design is compatible with any long term plans to bring a tunnelled heavy rail line under the Liffey near this location. If the inspector isn't happy with the explanations, they could reject the plan, or (more likely) grant it subject to the underground-compatible station design being used instead. This wouldn't change the visible parts of the station, as the box was to be built far below; but it would affect the budget.

    Infrastructure plans are often bounced back for being incompatible with existing government policies, and that isn't just environmental ones: it's hard to get planning for a project if that project would make other land use and transportation goals more difficult to achieve.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,026 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    ABP might mention it, but they certainly aren't going to block this station over it!

    The reality is per the DART+ Tunnel report, Dart Underground is basically dead. If ABP ask, I'm certain Irish Rail and the NTA will simply say they have no plans to build DU now or for a long time and can look at alternatives in future if it is ever revised.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Oh man, you wouldn't believe the **** that ABP sticks it's oar into. Prime case in point is actually related to Dart Underground, funnily enough: DCC want to build a bridge across the Liffey, but when they applied to ABP, the NTA said let's look at how this interfaces with DU, and then told DCC to move the bridge just in case.

    DCC apply to ABP again, with the bridge in the new location, only for ABP to say no, we preferred the original location. DCC amend the docklands plan to cater for the bridge and reapply, only to be told, no, this location where the NTA don't want it is where it should be.

    I don't know if that's forward planning, head in the sand, or just plain idiocy, but it means that we've still got no bridge in that area for years, and we're not likely to get one any time soon. Talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,236 ✭✭✭gjim


    Everyone agrees that the original proposal from the 2000s is not implementable - but that's not surprising at all since the genesis of that plan stretches back to when the entire area was undeveloped so plans could liberally use a huge surface area.

    Everything else, including claims that it "prevents any future cross-river rail tunnel", is just a bunch of non-engineers arguing about what might or might not be technically possible while making bold claims about inclines and clearances, etc.

    For the next round of plans after T42/DART+, there will be a share for DART/heavy-rail and I can't see any more pressing issue for DART than relieving central bottleneck and there's no way to do so, and to offer more city centre through running services than build a DART tunnel largely following the alignment of the the old plan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    That was on the origional metro plan, the line from the airport would split into two branches at Stephen Green, one branch toward Sandyford, and the other via Harolds Cross to Tallaght. Here is an 20 year old RTÉ news articles on it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Deleted

    Post edited by loco_scolo on


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,164 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Cgcsb means a stand-alone Tallaght Coolock line, not one that splits from Metrolink.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Yes, it's the obvious Metrolink 2 project, at least in my opinion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Why keep parading the lie that DU is dead when it is still part of the roadmap and Government plans. Officially at least, it's just been long-fingered



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Does anyone understand why building the bridge at Forbes Street would be twice as expensive? The DU tunnel would be fully underground at that stage, so I don't understand the issue.

    Frustrating as it is, I'd agree with ABP that the Forbes Street location is a better location in the long run.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    As it's a meant to be a rotating bridge, I'd guess that the foundation would have to be deep to support the weight all on the central pivot, which would need to be right over (or extremely close to) the Dart Underground tunnel. This would require more far more engineering than "just" a rotating bridge, which would easily account for the doubling in cost.

    Realistically, I'd doubt that they'd get the ok to build the bridge there before the tunnel either, so it's kind of a catch 22 situation. The NTA are sure to point out that tunnelling right under a single point of failure on the bridge, the central pivot, could result in an increased amount of subsidence/damage to the foundations.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement