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)

1348349350352354

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 388 ✭✭Ireland trains


    To be fair, that area of the city does seem to be a nimby blacksport, just look at the metro, busconnect and the previous proposals to shut level crossings.

    I’d imagine you’re right thought that every shut crossing will, at the very least, have a pedestrian and cycling bridge.

    If I were IÉ, I’d be quietly telling every politician from Dún Laoighre to Wexford that rail services will improve greatly for their constituents if these crossings close.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Since when did Dart care about permeability? Look at the amount of Dart stations that omit entrances where there really should be a few more - the bar is very low and the permeability argument does not stand up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    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)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,191 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,836 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    How do you know the Maynooth won’t exceed a 10 minute frequency between Clonsilla and Glasnevin Junction?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    As a train user on this line for 25 years, I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but at no point have IE made any concrete commitment to service levels, and their track record on delivering service improvements is uninspiring at best. I would be astonished if we ever get above a 10-minute frequency.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,249 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Gate automation is surprisingly expensive, and the payback period shouldn't have made sense any time from the 90s on if the original timelines for upgrades and electrification had happened…



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 916 ✭✭✭Ciaran


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    There is…. it's called a Bridge

    Anyone suggesting building level crossing on new or heavy upgrade projects need to have all their previous work checked over.

    Level Crossings are a disaster, no one should be building them in 2024.

    Lands down road is an exception as the rail goes under the stadium. means it's impossible raise or lower the rail or the road.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    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?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,836 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    We have yet to see any proposals for the southeastern line, so I wouldn’t be taking anything for granted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six


    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.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The LCs between Booterstown and GCD need to be closed, but not easy.

    However, there were plans to close Merrion Gates by rerouting the Strand Road through the two carparks next to the church (Our Lady, Queen of Peace) and the old CTT building on Strand Road. So that would solve the MG one, and possibly the Sydney Parade one as well.

    Another LC that could be solved is the one at Serpentine Ave. There is no station there, and there may be enough room to raise the line by, perhaps, two to three metres without affecting the gradient too much. The road would then have to pass under the line. Now a clearance of 5 metres would imply a drop of the road by about 3 metres or so. I think there is enough room for that.

    So that would leave Sandymount Station, and Lansdown needing to be closed or otherwise dealt with. Lansdown Station has a pedestrian underpass, so that might be a pointer to a solution for both.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,191 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


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



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Dealing with pedestrians is easy - either ramps or lifts work with little land required.

    Motorcars are a different story entirely, but replacing the five LCs with two bridges/underpasses would be a reasonable result. Not removing them but having frequencies of 12 TPHPD would be intolerable for motorists and locals.

    If there are closed, with two ways of crossing the line unimpeded (apart from other motorists blocking them), then it can be tolerated.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭gjim


    Lands down road is an exception as the rail goes under the stadium. means it's impossible raise or lower the rail or the road.

    Curious why an underpass could not work at Landsdown Road? Relatively lightly traffic roads can have steep gradients, 8 to 10% would still be functional. The bridge at Bath Ave is under 4m, even adding 1m for a "bed" under the rails would mean starting about 60m back from the current gates.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Problem is the stadium and 60,000 punters arriving and departing in short order.

    If it was to be done, it should have been done when the stadium was being rebuilt - yet another missed opportunity.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,249 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The road is closed and the crossing barriers down during those occasions anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭gjim


    I don't get you? The 50,000 punters enter and exit the stadium via 5 different approaches - Lansdowne Road itself is only one of them. There is already a pedestrian underpass which could be expanded. Besides Merrion Gates, it looks a lot more feasible than the ones between - which probably need far more complex works like raising the track and trackbed (and of course rebuilding the stations, etc).



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Pick 1 of them for a car underpass/bridge.

    Dutch style pedestrian and cycling underpass for the rest (don't skimp on this or it just becomes another thing nimbys will complain about)

    If its proving controversial to do anything with them, is there some legal minimum time they have to have the gates open for? If not, just run 5 minute trains, with the required safety windows, and if 1 car can pass through each cycle, so be it, people will start treating those roads as culs-de-sac anyway



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Serpentine Ave does not have a station nearby, so that is the one to choose.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 259 ✭✭DaBluBoi


    Kishoge Station on the Heuston Commuter line will open on Monday 26th August

    We got a date



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    The Depot is going beside a Canal (Between Maynooth and Kilcock) as opposed to a river though right? Has it burst its banks in recent history?

    I know for a fact that the Farmer does not want to sell the land, so that means CPO time, which will take at least 18 months (Probably more)

    Difficult but not impossible. owners of the Chiba line in Japan are in the process of eliminating all their LC's by raising the rail line:
    https://maps.app.goo.gl/zKNndqegz73X83Kx5


    vs

    vs

    You just need the right people doing the work I suppose.

    Note: I don't think double decker busses are a thing in Japan (Bridge looks low) I doubt anyone would ever hit it though… Japanese culture and all that.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I am proposing just raising the line between Lansdown and Sandymount and just the most at 3 metres, or perhaps a little more. Hardly huge, and hardly for anywhere else.

    Merrion Gates would be diverted close to Sydney Parade, so both would close. Sandymount would also close. Pedestrian and cycles would have to be accommodated at each.

    Landowne would need solving though.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Melbourne is currently eliminating dozens of level crossings in their heavy rail network. They eliminated five that were close together by elevating the line for the whole section, similar to what I see in your Japan pictures.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Raising the track between Lansdowne and Sandymount by 3 metres is a small(ish) project.

    To do it for the whole section from Landowne to Booterstown requires rebuilding three stations, raising the o/h wires plus the pedestrian bridges. That is a whole different project.

    Plus, the residents either side of the railway are unlikely to allow it without a very big fight.

    Plus, IR are currently working on the signalling.

    So, no to raising the line beyond a small section.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,968 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Raising the rail line there isn't going to happen. Apart from the major opposition which certainly kill the suggestion (which would be the same everywhere, not just in D4), it would close the line for a long time. Lowering the rail line at least avoids the permanent visual impact.

    Lowering also involves a long closure but this could perhaps be shortened by installing a temporary platform above the future (lowered) OHEL level. It would be difficult and extremely costly but could allow for battery trains (avoiding the need for temporary OHEL) continuing to operate while works happen underneath. There would be a lot of issues around that but it's the only way to avoid the visual impact.

    Lowering the tracks obviously won't be an option crossing the Dodder so the existing level would have to be retained. Crossing Lansdowne Road at high level probably won't be an option either because the ability to access the stadium with large equipment will have to be maintained. Also, the rail line going under the road allows all size of vehicle cross the line and removes the potential for bridge strikes.



Advertisement