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)

1348349350351352354»

Comments

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


    Connecting Metrolink to the heavy rail line at Donabate would be very diffiicult given the development around the station. Any above ground proposal would be objected to into oblivion.

    Not sure where the AISRR comes into it when it didn't mention Donabate at all and actually proposes a new rail line bypassing Donabate.



  • Registered Users Posts: 180 ✭✭pakb1ue


    I would imagine a bus connecting Estuary to Donabate would be more than enough.

    I've often wondered if running a metro along the Dart SE route but 1km in from the coast and leaving the alignment only for commuter and InterCity trains. Which would mean no need to close the level crossing and solve the issues between Bray and Greystones. However I doubt this would ever get a good CBA.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,907 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Would have thought the best way of connecting with the mainline was at Rush & Lusk.



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


    (Pete) There is no development to the southeast of Donabate train station, and (pakb) a connecting bus to Estuary absolutely is not good enough.

    The whole point of this connection is so Belfast/Dundalk/Drogheda passengers can change to Metrolink to get to the airport (or DCU) - with ML every 2 mins the shuttle bus would be expected to be as frequent but it certainly wouldn't be. The only way to do this is to extend ML to the rail line.

    If Donabate didn't work out then Rush & Lusk it is.

    The AIRR's new intercity line would pass between the M1 and Broadmeadow Estuary. So the ML north to either Donabate or R&L could have a station there (the townland is Lissenhall) to allow intercity passengers to get on ML for Dublin Airport. Though you'd also surround the station with development to make it more viable.



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


    I don't see the southeast of Donabate as suitable for a Metrolink approach. It would have to cross both the rail line and the new ring road. As to get parallel to the rail line, you either have to swing wide south of the ring road which takes you into marshy estuary land and nature reserve, or you swing round north of the ring road which is earmarked for development. You would have to demolish protected buildings to get to the station.

    Donabate station has limited space to create an interchange station. R&L has lots of room to provide multiple heavy rail and Metrolink platforms which would be needed.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,668 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    A new Drogheda to Clongriffin line with a stop at the Airport would be a lot more beneficial. Stopping intercity trains at Donebate or R&L is far from ideal



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,684 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    I've been of the opinion, (perhaps not a widely held one) that "Metro North" should be a quad track heavy rail line from Hueston, City Centre, Airport and join the Belfast line somewhere around Rush & Lusk



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


    I'd be inclined to agree. But the Metro is envisaged as a state of the art people moving system. It think the plan is a train every couple of mins during busy periods. Fully automated (No drivers). wouldn't mix well with traditional heavy rail I suppose.



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


    What you're describing is effectively a "Crossrail 2" to "Dart+ Underground"'s "Crossrail"

    Probably not a bad idea, but decades away from being on the radar. How about building the metro awaiting a railway order now, and then planning a heavy rail spur via the airport, Cross Guns and Heuston, and not call it a metro because it isn't?



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


    A quad-track heavy rail alignment of that length - more than 25km with at least half of it running underground - would cost many multiples the cost of ML. Underground stations with 180m platforms are not cheap.

    And I don't see how you'd justify a need for quad-tracking? Crossrail is currently carrying over 1/2 a million passengers a day on 2 tracks.

    Beyond some variant of the DART-undeground - a relatively short 2-track 5 or 6km tunnel - I think the costs would kill any new long heavy rail alignment going through the centre of the city. The DART+ tunnel works because of the ratio of (expensive) tunnel length to the length of existing alignments that it connects to.

    After DART+ tunnel, the only heavy rail additions that would make sense to me would be outer suburban/commuter town branches (Navan and the like) - where you can build reasonably cheaply on the surface over fields - and now you have the capacity in the centre/core (with the tunnel) to provide more services. And some 4 track sections North of Connolly to support better Enterprise timings.

    Any rail budget for a big ticket item, I'd prefer to spent on a 2nd ML style line (Tallaght to Coolock/Howth Junction for example). And any further Luas spending should be on adding relatively dense on-street tram capacity in the centre to get the convoys of double deckers off core/central streets.



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


    The idea seems to be mostly based on bringing people from Cork and Limerick directly to Dublin Airport. DUB is struggling to provide facilities for current demand, never mind adding several million more passengers from the other side of the country, particularly when existing airports in those regions have unutilised capacity. Travel demand between Belfast and Cork/Limerick is tiny and even a through service would see few passengers making that trip each day.

    It's a pure fantasy which would cost €100bn to get everything in place, not worth thinking about.



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


    DUB is already serving those passengers from Cork and Limerick, but they're arriving mostly by car.

    The biggest problem with any "rail from Cork to DUB" proposal isn't in Dublin at all, it's at the far end. Your typical 0630 holiday flight out of Dublin means a 5:30 checkin at the latest, which means you'd need to be on this DART-to-the-airport by 4:50, which means you're train arrived at Heuston at 4:40, so it had to have left Cork at 3:00 (I'm assuming we'll have an electrified railway by now, capable of doing the trip in 100 minutes).

    How viable do you imagine a daily 0300 Cork-Dublin train is, commercially?

    The only realistic option is to take the train the night before, overnight in a reasonably priced hotel near to a metro stop (plenty of scope in the North City to build one), then take the 15-20 minute trip on the metro to the airport.

    Once there's a rail link to the airport, there is no need for a second one. Want to give Belfast passengers a better rail link to the airport? Then build a Metro/DART line that provides the interchange between the Northern line and the existing Metro to the airport - there's no need to reinvent the wheel.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,668 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Or rather it's about separating intercity journeys from local ones, allowing more capacity and greater frequency on DART. It'd be fairly standard transport policy all over Europe.



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


    No, standard transport policy is to have intercity services terminate in the city which is the destination for the vast majority of passengers. Further onward travel in or around the city can be done on the local transport network, travel to other locations generally requires changing to another service to that location.

    Do you have any examples of European cities where standard transport policy is to build a multi-billion € tunnel through the capital city to allow a few passengers to travel between regional cities more than 400km apart without changing?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,668 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Madrid, Barcelona, London, Warsaw, the three Baltic capitals.

    The benefits aren't end to end journeys per say it's more that terminal capacity in the bigger city is freed up for more commuter capacity plus it enhances regional connectivity. Turn around time is a premium in many large cities. Also providing mainline access to a country's main airport relieves capacity in the central area by removing pax that don't need to be there. That's why schipol, frankfurt, copenhagen etc spend so much providing intercity access to their main airport.

    But alas that can be a future issue DART is the current focus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    A better way of doing that is to have inter-city rail bypass Dublin.

    Inter-City could stop at Hazelhatch, west of Leixlip (Louisa Bridge), Dublin Airport and Rush&Lusk, with all of those becoming interchange for onward travel in Dublin. This would free up Dart West, Dart South-West and Dart North from those annoying inter-city trains, and would cost far less as no tunnelling required, except maybe at the airport.



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


    I wouldn't be a fan of the idea. Why bypass the biggest rail trip generator in the country? And impose the inconvenience and uncertainty of an extra change onto all existing to/from Dublin intercity passengers to make life easier for the 50 a day (if that) who want to do Cork to Belfast?

    It would just give everyone another excuse to switch to coach instead of rail for intercity travel. The attractiveness of intercity rail increases with the closeness of the terminal to centre of the city.

    The best way to improve the viability of inter-city rail is to ensure that there is dense and efficient local public transport options at both ends making more end-to-end journey combinations feasible by PT. Without that intercity travel will really only be a an option for those who aren't particularly worried about having predictable and efficient journey times.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,684 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    A bit late for this, they already quad track most of the way to Hueston.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The priority is to make life easier for the rail commuters in Dublin.

    20-minute gaps during commuting hours that facilitate inter-city would be eliminated. Better for the huge numbers that will be using DART.



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


    DART will already be completely segregated from Intercity services out of Heuston by the extension of the four tracking along the “Gullet”.

    The vast majority of Intercity passengers aren’t going to/from the airport but rather the city centre or points accessible from it.

    I’m not sure that turfing the majority of people off out in the sticks as you’re suggesting would be a positive change.

    With the additional orbital bus routes being delivered through BusConnects, both Heuston and Connolly will have more direct connections around the city.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The thing is, with my proposal, they will have better access to all of the lines, other than Dart Coastal South. Like heavy rail in Paris, there will be connections with Dart SW, Dart W, Metrolink and Dart N.



  • Registered Users Posts: 615 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    Metro West would provide the same connectivity, but also do it for commuters, not just intercity travellers. The vast majority of inter-city travellers want to go to the city centre.

    All going to "plan", Heuston will be 4-tracked from HH, Sligo would be diverted to Heuston via HH, Northern Line to Belfast will be 4-tracked to Clongriffin, and Wexford will terminate at Bray/Greystones or diverted to Heuston via Waterford.

    If all that is built, then Intercity trains will effectively be separated from commuter trains.



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


    @Pete_Cavan I agree with your point entirely, but your final question is interesting, so here are the cities that have built multi-billion euro tunnels through their centres for mainline rai. None of these really support us doing the same in Dublin, for various reasons, but here’s what I could find:

    Madrid has a high-speed rail tunnel running beneath the city from Atocha station in the south to Chamartín-Clara Campoamor at the north. This is a high-speed rail line, though, and it follows a pattern in the Spanish HSR system of tunnelling under city centres: Barcelona and Zaragoza are the same. On a HSR network, it makes sense to link city stations like this, as it increases the catchment for the high-sped line. But I think we can all agree that HSR is not viable in Ireland - not because of cost, but because our distances are far too short.

    So, strictly mainline inter-city tunnels? There’s only two… and a half… examples:

    First, Berlin built a North-South mainline rail tunnel, opened in 2006. However, unlike Dublin, Berlin is a hub for international rail travel, with a catchment of about 40 million people along the lines that converge on it. A sizeable share of trains arriving at Berlin are for destinations beyond the city, and the existing rail links, shared with the Berlin S-Bahn in places, were a major bottleneck. Removing that regional bottleneck was the justification for the new tunnel, which was part of a wider plan to undo the severing of cross-city transport links in the DDR years.

    A more extreme case is the Willemspoort tunnel under Rotterdam that carries a metro service and mainline trains on its four tracks. But the reason for this expense wasn’t to connect the city’s stations, but to eliminate an opening rail bridge (De Hef) over the harbour that created scheduling problems for the entire Dutch railway network.

    That’s it for the modern projects, now the “half”, which is Prague. Prague has lots of mainline rail tunnels. The main ones are the four parallel Vinohrady tunnels, linking Smichov to the west and Eden and Vrsovice stations to the East with the Main Station to the North: the first two are 19th Century, the fourth was opened in 1989 (under the communist Fourth Czechoslovak republic), so costs are nothing like they’d be for a modern project. Again, though, Prague has the same excuse as Berlin: a hub in the international rail network.



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


    They all recently built mainline tunnels under the capital to bypass the city in order to link much smaller cities which have little travel between them? I'll go with KrisW1001's well researched post and say what you suggest isn't standard transport policy.

    Terminal capacity isn't that big an issue in Dublin and wouldn't be an issue if the DART+ Tunnel was built. With DART trains bypassing Heuston and Connolly, both would have plenty of capacity. Add to that the new Spencer Dock station.

    Rather than building a heavy rail mainline tunnel from west of Heuston to north of the airport, it would be cheaper to extend the DART+ Tunnel further north. Connect back to the existing line around Clongriffin, that effectively quadtracks the Northern Line. Not that I think that will happen, just pointing out that there are options to achieve what you want at much less cost. It wouldn't connect directly to the airport but that isn't worth the enormous cost involved.



Advertisement