DART+ (DART Expansion)

splitting requires manpower and organisation. I guess it's just a lot easier to send out every train at full length and suck up the additional power costs.

splitting in-service for the Howth branch is a really terrible idea. One of the key ideas of Dart+ is to improve reliability by operating a very uniform regular service with fixed format trains and minimal conflicting movements. Splitting and reforming has huge potential for introducing delays - IÉ tried it on the Intercity network a few years ago and quickly abandoned it as the process was not reliable. That was a couple of trains a day, not 6 trains an hour!

You'll then need two drivers. Both trains will be blocking the section while they are split and tested. And the train in rear will have to wait until the train in front has cleared the next section. It's just not feasible

I'd expect the HJ-Howth shuttle to be super reliable given that it will just be a couple of 4-car units going back and forth on a line with no other traffic. But I can understand people's reluctance to add a transfer to their journey given the general unreliability of the service that we have all experienced, and the spartan nature of many Dart stations and the terrible passenger information systems. The same applies to Busconnects and people having to change buses - it's a fine idea in principle, but everyone's got plenty of experience of standing around waiting for a bus that never comes.

On high frequency suburban services?

The do this (or did maybe) with Galway/Mayo trains. More suited for long distance, where the time to split is a small fraction of the total journey time.

As an aside, I read the luas finglas RO application. It's a very high quality set of documents. Hopefully this is a new standard for public projects which will be much more robust against court action.

In contrast, the DART+ West documents were littered with typos, poor sentence structure, wrong document references and figure references etc. A playground for solicitor really.

They tend not to do joining/splitting in the UK on a two track railway blocking the running lines though as doing it at Raheny would. It’s usually at stations where they can be overtaken and not risking causing a blockage, and would block the line until the signal section is cleared.

It really isn’t an option. Changing to a shuttle is a much more efficient approach - it’s just going to need a similar approach as that at Broombridge to make Howth Junction a location that people feel safe to change at.

People tend not to visualise the more frequent services that would be running and look at it in the here and now. Twenty years ago could anyone imagine Broombridge being somewhere that people would be using as an interchange - that’s the change in mindset that’s needed in this case.

Plus people changing from the shuttle need assurances that they will be able to get on the connecting DART to city - maximising connections with Clongriffin starters would be key at peak times.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that you have raised this several times here over the years, and I’m pretty sure that I explained that they did make a significant effort at splitting and joining trains during the day at Connolly and Bray back when the economy tanked, but that my understanding was that the whole process actually didn’t save money after all, due in part to the additional driver resources needed to do the shunting back and forth of units to/from Fairview and the constant switching around in Bray which proved challenging to say the least!

The lack of any facilities to stable trains at the northern ends of the DART lines (or easily in the case of Malahide) doesn’t help either. It restricts the option to Connolly and Bray which makes the whole operation that bit trickier.

Sometimes it’s just easier and more cost effective to keep the capacity in service given the infrastructure constraints and to keep the drivers on revenue earning services.

So ROD and IDOM did the Dart Plus applications but Atkins are going to do future planning applications for them?

Good news if so, if the Dart Plus applications were substandard.

Update, the facts:

The option to take a JR against DART+ Southwest has now expired and DART+SW now has an operable railway order and may now proceed to tender for works, pending final funding approval from the NTA/DoT. Expect to see some tenders this year, perhaps even tender review/award by year end.

DART+W is in the JR process. ABP were to submit it's case to the court in early December but have failed to do so, they have indicated that they will be unable to do so until the end of January. If that is met the case can proceed around the end of February. Hopefully this will be concluded swiftly.

We could even see some early works on both projects in 2025 to prepare for the main works. Main construction is now highly likely to get started in 2026 and really ramp up in 2027. There is no final construction programme yet given the variables but a completion date of 2031 is possible.

The Elephant:

Depot-gate. The DART+ scheme may be built but completely inoperable without a Depot, a revised RO application for the Depot is unlikely in 2025. This is a major challenge, if the application can be made in 2026, experience tells us that ROs take 2 years, meaning 2028 before a decision. Tendering and constructing the Depot in time for completion of the rest of the scheme seems unlikely at this point. However reforms to ABP and the planning courts may relieve some of these issues, it's a wait and see scenario.

If the depot is moved, there is still a need for a further application for West of Maynooth, as the RO was cut off at Bond Bridge, just beyond the station.

Kilcock extension is meant to be in design currently and will presumably handle that, but if not, they may need to do a basic planning app for the electrification and maybe some additional turnback sidings.

In the case of strategic infrastructure like most transport projects, the Government should have the power to direct ABP to move such projects up the queue. ABP can of course still act independenty when making a judgment.

Alos once the ABP backog is substantially alleviated, there should be a new rule: if ABP does not give a verdict within 6 months, then planning consent can be assumed. Put a gun to their heads.

They're getting JRs anyway so saving 2 years by cutting out the middle man could be the ticket to clear a backlog

That's leaving the state wide open to issues down the line, from substandard designs, to possible drainage and flooding issues, to unsafe roads. It would be like signing a blank check for future court cases by those affected.

It's probably also against EU law given the environmental impact of projects on European sites in particular wouldn't be assessed.

We'll see with luas finglas then since that's newly submitted. Here's hoping it gets an RO in May but I have my doubts

Just to be clear, a planning amnesty is not anything which I would ever support. Properly legislated changes to general rules are a different matter.

While I don't want to underestimate the problems the delayed depot might bring, I think its a bit pessimistic to say that the depot issues might make D+ completely inoperable. There is no denying the delays it might cause, but given the time it takes the electrify it was going to take quite a bit of time to get the full capacity D+ network anyways.

With the third order soon to be in place, there will "only" be 93 units left in the framework, or 5 orders(assuming 20 units per order) if they decide to fulfill the entire framework. I don't like to use the word only, as that is still almost two-thirds of the framework, but it isn't a doomed timeframe. If they place the fourth order sometime in 2027 and then place an order ever year after until 2031 when the framework expires, they can still complete the framework.

Its far from the ideal situation to be in, and I think its likely that at the current rate when the D+ network first opens they may be short units to operate at fully capacity. But I think any shortage of units we might see would be temporary while they are still being manufactured or commissioned. As Jim Meade put it, It's "not on a critical path" yet. That I do think if they take too long to get a new depot designed, or if it gets stuck in ABP or JR hell, then there might be problem, but I am trying not to think about that.

Also, what is the story with the D+W JRs? The court cases appear to be up on the high court website but there has been no publicity about it's a bit hard to find out what is going on. I'm assuming it's about the Ashtown crossing?

Is this set in stone or is there any chance this timeline could improve?

Everything has been said already but a vague date of 2027 to begin construction really is frightfully poor.

We've been talking about "DART+" / "DART Expansion" for a decade now and absolutely nothing has been delivered.

It's shameful that at this rate none of the proposed network expansions below will have even begun construction by the time the gates were meant to open. Is there any legitimate reason why preparing the tenders etc. is going to take 2-3 years?

Didn't someone say that the opportunity for JR of DART+ SouthWest had expired, which means it has moved ahead of Dart West?

yes techincally they are ahead but likely both will be delivered together

Does anyone know what the increase in capacity for the northern line will be from current service level to when the BEMUs are running from 2026?

I see the attached info graphic mentions that the increases in capacity are a comparison between post BEMU and the service level upon completion of Dart + Coastal North.

Will there actually be a significant increase in passenger capacity at peak when the BEMUs are rolled out?

The BEMUs will be direct replacements for the 29000s.

No frequency increase until the EMUs arrive and electrification happens.