DART+ (DART Expansion)

Yes, the most extensive disruption will be at Glasnevin station (not part of this railway order) the length of time is something that is yet to be coordinated between metrolink and IÉ but could be many months at a time. Perhaps the either the MGWR or the GSWR can be kept open at all times.

I was on a train from Sligo today and had that exact thought when passing Broombridge, it looks like there's disused platforms there that could be repurposed as a turn back. Mind you they are past the main station so not sure how a connection could be accommodated.

It will be interesting to see how they tender the DART+ W construction/civil works. If it will be one big contract or if they'll separate into various elements, for example line works, Spencer Dock area, Glasnevin Junction, etc.

Yes I think that makes a lot of sense but would involve preparing several different tender packages, assessing and awarding them. You then need all the dominos to fall one after another. Although IÉ don't seem to mind that, they have three separate contracts going on down in Cork.

I notice (on Google ) that there seems to be a lot of siding at Enfield train station, be nice if they put the depot there, then they would also have to extend DART to Enfield/Kilcock :)

Not big enough.

Unless I'm seriously misreading the market presentation that Irish Rail made, there'll be multiple tenders:

• Spencer Dock station
• Depot
• Signalling/telecoms and electrification - one tender for all lines
• Permanent way - one tender for all lines
• Civil engineering and structural - tender per line

They have indicative values and I can't figure out why the PW costs for South West are so damn high compared to the other lines.

But the bridges etc will be in civils/structure (which is also high for SW); and electrification is in signalling/electrification.

It may be an error as to which package the value was against.

Point taken about civils, but PPT has to be the most complex tracklaying job in the project, and the four-tracking to Heuston means moving a lot of the existing track too. Widening the way here is so tight that it requires anchoring retaining walls diagonally under other properties.

Yes looks likely to be about now next year, Give or take a couple of weeks, we'll know more when the D&B packa go out.

Taken from the coastal north plans

I understand all the challenges particularly in D4, it's just an odd contradiction that under no circumstances could the LCs be left open for the Maynooth line even though it will never match the frequency of even the current DART service, and any suggestion that they could be left open and managed better was completely dismissed - yet that's exactly what will be done for the Coastal South line (eventually)

There was a reasonable and practical solution to close Merrion Gates and the NTA got scared when the locals put up a fight. That would probably be good enough to close Sydney Parade crossing as well

An opportunity was lost when Landsdowne Road was redeveloped to address that with an underpass as the road already rises up on both sides of the crossing an underpass wouldn't have been that insane a choice. The railway line could easily be lifted 1m-1.5m to help

That leaves Sandymount Ave and Serpentine Ave

Its bears reminding the original DART plan was to go underground between Sydney Parade and Sandymount and stay underground until Cabra, this avoided 3 level crossings. In the late 1970's Dublin City Council did look at bridging Merrion Gates but spent to the money on the Stillorgan Road instead

All good points…

@Ireland trains - yes, there’s a lot of NIMBYism here from people with too much money and time on their hands, but NIMBYs are the minority everywhere. I cannot see much objection in places where no motor-traffic way is going to be put in place - if your leafy suburban street becomes a leafy suburban cul-de-sac, you really should shut up and hope nobody notices what a good deal you’ve just been handed. There will, however, be complaints in places where the motor traffic is preserved, as they will incur higher traffic levels.

@AngryLips - DART stations choosing not to add permeability is one thing; DART works removing permeability is another. In today’s city planning environment, it will be very difficult to get permission for works that would make foot and bike passengers take long detours. I agree that some of the existing stations could do with adding entrances/exits, but then I’m not the one who has to police fare-dodging (off-topic, but I’d like to see DART join Luas and Metro in adopting an honour system for ticketing - this would make it trivial to add entrances to stations)

@Former Former Former - None of the Western line crossings were on such busy roads - and I don’t know what level of automation they had. The current DART gates are pretty fast: actually, thanks to the people who post videos of such things online, I see it’s about 1 minute 40 per train from the red lights to gates back up. Even at one train every 2.5 minutes (5tph both ways) on average, at some points where road traffic is low they may actually get away with keeping the gate in place by limiting car access on the approaches.

I do believe it is still the intention to close all of the crossings in D4, and the consultation process is about how this should be done rather than if, but it’ll be a difficult job.

and I don’t know what level of automation they had. 

Not much, is the answer.

In Clonsilla, there is literally a wooden wheel in the station house which has to be manually turned to open and close the gates, it's Victorian-era engineering. At Ashtown, a bloke has to come out and physically move the gates himself, it's not even Victorian, it's medieval.

The idea that, in the 21st century, there's no technology that could do it more quickly and efficiently is slightly bizarre, but here we are.

There's a pedestrian underpass under the tracks at Lansdowne Road already. It's only opened when there's a match on though. The actual stadium doesn't overhang the tracks anymore either. When the stadium was redeveloped, the pitch was moved 40-50m East. The entranceway into the West stand goes over the tracks but it could be possible to raise the track and have people enter underneath.

Anyone suggesting building level crossing

No one is suggesting building level crossings.

The question is why closing all existing level crossings on one line was an absolute imperative, but on another line, it's only something that might be considered.

need to have all their previous work checked over.

This wouldn't be a bad call, maybe someone checking it might have said, "hey lads, are you sure you want to build this enormous, project-critical depot on a flood plain?"

The wheel works surprisingly well at Clonsilla. Not that often that a train gets stopped waiting for the gates.

Ashtown is a different story. Trains are held regularly, waiting for that set to close and the keeper return to the hut with the keys.

Removal of all the gates would save about four minutes off the journey time though.

Sandymount in theory had a pedestrian underpass as built in 1984, but modern requirements would need an accessible solution