Article: Planned Dublin metro line to cost more than €5bn

Prof_V

strassenwolf wrote:

The interconnector would have a vastly greater capacity than the metro, given that we're talking about 8-12 carriage trains and, potentially, similar frequencies.

I think P11 (specifically, Mark Gleeson's report comparing Interconnector and Metro, which could hardly be accused of pro-Metro bias) actually quoted a maximum frequency of 16 trains/hour/direction for the Interconnector (maximum capacity of the signalling, not initial service level) a while back. You could argue that you could theoretically get more than that, but I believe even Crossrail in London won't be able to manage 24 trains/hour/direction because of the reliability impact of sharing tracks.

The fact that the current plans of Iarnrod Eireann and the DTO don't utilise very much of the potential capacity of the interconnector does not mean that the capacities are the same. In this case, not by a long chalk.

Again on the P11 figures, the ultimate capacity of the Interconnector would be 46,400 passengers/hour/direction (assuming 16 trains in each direction, all 12-car double-deck). If you assume 90m long, 2.4m wide Citadis vehicles for the Metro, then at 40 trains/hour/direction you get about 35,000 passengers/hour/direction, so there's a difference, but it depends on how long a long chalk is.

strassenwolf

Prof_V wrote:

I think P11 (specifically, Mark Gleeson's report comparing Interconnector and Metro, which could hardly be accused of pro-Metro bias) actually quoted a maximum frequency of 16 trains/hour/direction for the Interconnector (maximum capacity of the signalling, not initial service level) a while back. You could argue that you could theoretically get more than that, but I believe even Crossrail in London won't be able to manage 24 trains/hour/direction because of the reliability impact of sharing tracks.

I can well believe that 16 trains per hour is the maximum frequency, due to the planned signalling. This is not to say that this is the maximum frequency which would be possible in the tunnel, eventually. Frankfurt, for example, where I lived for the last year, has a frequency of 22 trains per hour in their main rail tunnel, and they are spending a few million upgrading this the 24 trains per hour. Munich's main tunnel has a capacity of 30 trains per hour, which they use.

Whatever about the signalling which is initially installed, on the basis of the above the interconnector tunnel itself has a capacity which is vastly higher than that of the metro tunnel. This is where the IT correspondent was wildly incorrect.

Slice

The interconnector would also maximise potential on existing infrastructure in a way that Metro North could never do

Prof_V

strassenwolf wrote:

I can well believe that 16 trains per hour is the maximum frequency, due to the planned signalling. This is not to say that this is the maximum frequency which would be possible in the tunnel, eventually. Frankfurt, for example, where I lived for the last year, has a frequency of 22 trains per hour in their main rail tunnel, and they are spending a few million upgrading this the 24 trains per hour.

I didn't deny this (see my remarks about Crossrail), but (see Crossrail again) there may be limits to what's practically achievable, particularly at our levels of segregation.

Munich's main tunnel has a capacity of 30 trains per hour, which they use.

True, although it has certain special features, like separate boarding and alighting platforms, that the Interconnector apparently won't have (it's now going to be duplicated too).

Ultimately, though, I can't see more than 30,000/hour/direction being needed in Dublin for the foreseeable future (for the Interconnector this would mean either going to 12-car or double-deck, but probably not both).

Slice wrote:

The interconnector would also maximise potential on existing infrastructure in a way that Metro North could never do

I think the fundamental problem in Dublin, though, is that there are a limited number of corridors that aren't convenient to existing lines but need a capacity higher than Luas can provide - which is why Metro is needed as well as Interconnector. And, for the record, I'm not anti-Interconnector - I've been in favour of it since it was proposed, unlike a certain journalist who came out against it for a while in 2003, and I think more could be done to expedite it, but there's definitely a whiff of "if you're not with us you're against us" about the debate.

Irish and Proud

Victor wrote:

Guesstimating:

Metro = 30 years x €166m/year = €5bn

Interconnector = 4 years x €750m/year + 30 years x €25m/year = €3.75bn

Not that much difference (note Interconnector is smaller project).

OK, the Interconnector is a smaller project, but it's like a pawn on the promotion square! It's not what the interconnector is in itself, but what it can become in conjunction with existing rail routes. The Metro is a stand alone project, but the Interconnector will vastly enhance existing rail stock, thereby greatly magnifying it's potential - overall passenger capacity is set to increase four fold from 25m/year to 100m/year. Because the Interconnector will form a crossover layout in conjunction with today's railways, trains will be able to go straight through the city without having to terminate where both rail and passenger traffic is at it's heaviest. Also, inter-route conflict will be dramatically reduced.

Yep, the Interconnector is the one for me!

Regards!

strassenwolf

Prof_V wrote:

I didn't deny this (see my remarks about Crossrail), but (see Crossrail again) there may be limits to what's practically achievable, particularly at our levels of segregation.

Fairly high levels of segregation should be possible in the west of the city, as there will be four tracks. Given that a line of this nature has been part of the plans for Dublin for some 30 odd years, it is a pity that the planners have never seriously envisaged that trains would feed along more than one corridor (the one to/from Hazelhatch). By that I particularly mean the city/county planners.

Along with everyone else, Platform 11 are well aware that 16 trains per hour through the tunnel in each direction is an absolute pipedream while the northern DART line remains at two tracks. The recent consultation about the design of the interconnector stations showed that no serious consideration has been given to getting around this limiting factor.

True, although it has certain special features, like separate boarding and alighting platforms, that the Interconnector apparently won't have (it's now going to be duplicated too).

Munich's 30 train per hour line has separate boarding and alighting platforms at some stations. There used to be several stations where these features were not present, yet they still handled 30 trains per hour in each direction. As far as I am aware, this is still the case.

Frankfurt's main line does not have these features, and many of the trains feeding into it also share track with unrelated services.

Prof_V

strassenwolf wrote:

Fairly high levels of segregation should be possible in the west of the city, as there will be four tracks. Given that a line of this nature has been part of the plans for Dublin for some 30 odd years, it is a pity that the planners have never seriously envisaged that trains would feed along more than one corridor (the one to/from Hazelhatch). By that I particularly mean the city/county planners.

I suspect part of the problem was that the project was effectively abandoned in 1987 and resurrected about twelve years later (by which time the Tallaght spur had been lost to Luas). A connection to the Maynooth line did get looked at in the early stages of Interconnector planning (this proposal goes back at least to the 1940s, when it was intended to take freight trains from the Midland line into a new marshalling yard at Clondalkin), but was rejected. There might be potential for a spur from the Adamstown area towards Peamount if land south of the Cork line in that area got rezoned (which I think might happen in the longer term). Regardless of the possibility or otherwise of additional routes, I think the current plans could do a lot more to exploit the potential of the Hazelhatch route itself, particularly the inner sections.

Along with everyone else, Platform 11 are well aware that 16 trains per hour through the tunnel in each direction is an absolute pipedream while the northern DART line remains at two tracks. The recent consultation about the design of the interconnector stations showed that no serious consideration has been given to getting around this limiting factor.

I think this is unfortunate too. I suspect the 12-car and double-deck proposals are largely about getting more capacity out of this section (which I believe will only be able to handle 12 DART services per hour in each direction) than exploiting the Interconnector itself (which could probably make it to somewhere above 20tph with appropriate signalling; I'm not actually denying that:D ). I don't think IÉ have ever given a coherent explanation for dropping the four-tracking, or an adequate commitment to keep it on the table for the longer term. And don't get me started on the failure to make land reservations for the extra tracks, even if they weren't needed yet, or to make passive provision for them in the DART upgrade...

Munich's 30 train per hour line has separate boarding and alighting platforms at some stations. There used to be several stations where these features were not present, yet they still handled 30 trains per hour in each direction. As far as I am aware, this is still the case.

Fair enough, but the experience would seem to suggest 30tph requires facilities like this for at least the busiest stations, which the Interconnector won't have (it will have extra platforms at Heuston, but this is to do with the aforementioned shortage of destinations beyond that point). I believe the Paris RER manages high frequencies without this kind of provision, but its degree of segregation is very high, more like a metro than a suburban train.

(Incidentally, this may be my last contribution to the thread - no offence to anyone, but I have other commitments.)

Metrobest

Excuse me, I've been on holidays and relocated to Barcelona... have I missed something, or didn't we discuss all this in forensic detail a long time ago? Frank McDonald could have done a trawl through the archives of this forum and obtained the same nuggets of information as he did through the FoI Act. He could have looked at when we discussed the "slimmed down" metro. Or the myriad threads where we analysed the costs and the benefits of metro, the merits of public private partnerships; comparisons metro to the luas and dart concepts.

Ah, but idle chit chat from internet forums wouldn't look good in the paper of record. McDonald needed something more juicy. How about a bit of subterfuge, a bit of blacked out text, some government secrecy. Let's see if we can get a conspiracy theory going here. Let's make 'em scared of the metro.

What bothers me most is not the shoddy journalism or the "Editorial" that probably also came from the pen of McDonald, not Madam Editor.

It's the feeling that Frank McDonald would rather see the metroNorth project collapse than to admit that, just perhaps, he could be wrong.

But this is a matter of pride for McDonald now. I mean, he got it wrong about luas, he got it wrong about the WestLink..

Even a stopped watch gets it right twice a day, and on balance I think Frank McDonald is a better-than-average journalist, mind you that average is pretty low to begin with.

But in relation to metroNorth, McDonald gets it wrong - 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The simple fact of the matter is that metroNorth has been subjected to the tightest CBA, the lengthiest debate and the most interminable political wrangling of any rail project in Irish history.

The delays have created a heritage of human misery that North Dublin's commuters have to face on a daily basis. Of couse, this is a daily reality inot faced by Frank McDonald in his leisurely commute to Tara Street.

I think he lives in a city centre apartment building called "Ivory Towers."

antoinolachtnai

Now to be fair, there is a big difference between reading something on a bulletin board on the Internet, and actually establishing it as fact.

mackerski

strassenwolf wrote:

Munich's 30 train per hour line has separate boarding and alighting platforms at some stations. There used to be several stations where these features were not present, yet they still handled 30 trains per hour in each direction. As far as I am aware, this is still the case.

The tunnel section in Munich has separated platforms at the three most inner-city and therefore most trafficked stations, plus a few other stunts that (I'm no expert) seem likely to optimise capacity. The configuration (from east to west) looks like this:

Ostbahnhof: The eastern mainline station. On the surface, with two platforms per S-Bahn direction. Trains about to enter the tunnel typically dwell a bit before doing so, and I always assumed that this was to optimise tunnel throughput. East of here the lines sharing the tunnel diverge quickly, so coupled with the fact that there are two platforms, this helps ensure no backlog of trains waiting to exit the tunnel.

Rosenheimer Platz: Not overly central, single platform

Isartor: Edge of old town, but not ridiculously high patronage, single platform.

Marienplatz, Stachus, Hauptbahnhof: The three big destinations (which are all also U-Bahn interchange points, Hauptbahnhof is also the main mainline station). Platform on both sides, board on the left, exit to the right.

Hackerbrücke: Back on the surface, now in the mega-tracked corridor heading west from Hauptbahnhof. I know this station less well, but I'm guessing at least two platforms per direction, mirroring Ostbahnhof configuration. Westbound S-bahns from here also diverge, though less immediately.

How many of those stunts can we pull off here? ISTM that the best thing we can do is have some Hazelhatch services terminate at Spencer Dock (are there enough platforms) to allow better frequency through the tunnel.

Victor

mackerski wrote:

How many of those stunts can we pull off here? ISTM that the best thing we can do is have some Hazelhatch services terminate at Spencer Dock (are there enough platforms) to allow better frequency through the tunnel.

Heuston Underground appears to be 4-platform, but they seem to be conventional platforms.

I'm not sure if anywhere is Dublin warrants or will warrant a 'board on the left, exit to the right' scenario - just give the first one off the train a cattle prod to clear the way.

strassenwolf

Prof V wrote:

Ultimately, though, I can't see more than 30,000/hour/direction being needed in Dublin for the foreseeable future (for the Interconnector this would mean either going to 12-car or double-deck, but probably not both).

Prof, the people who planned Munich's S-Bahn, including its central line, envisaged the system carrying around 250,000 people per day. Within about a year of opening this central line, the S-Bahn was carrying around 400,000 passengers a day. The plans to duplicate this line, which you mention, started in earnest when the S-Bahn was carrying around 750,000 people per day, around 30 years later. Very many of these people would use the central line, which has around 1,000 trains per day.

The above is merely a simple illustration that, just because something can't be "seen" in the present day, that it may not happen in the future, or that it might not be a good idea for it to happen in the unforeseeable future.;)

mackerski wrote:

How many of those stunts can we pull off here? ISTM that the best thing we can do is have some Hazelhatch services terminate at Spencer Dock (are there enough platforms) to allow better frequency through the tunnel.

From what I've seen, extra platforms don't appear to be a feature at any station apart from Heuston. I would seriously struggle to understand why they could not be included at, for example, Spencer Dock, given that it was until fairly recently a blank canvas for the planners.

Even without platforms on both sides of trains, I did point out above that the Rhine-Main S-Bahn through Frankfurt runs 22 trains an hour in each direction, soon to be 24, without such features. They did consider upgrading to the LZB signalling system used in Munich to allow 30, but decided against it.

As far as I am aware, the main factor was cost - upgrading from 22 to 24 only costs about 8 million euro, while upgrading from 22 to 30 would have cost the guts of 100 million euro.

However, between the two busiest stations in the city, the central S-Bahn line shares a tunnel with a U-Bahn line - U-Bahn on the two outside tracks, S-Bahn on the middle tracks. Upgrading such an arrangement to an "on-platform, off-platform" arrangement could probably only happen by severing this east-west U-Bahn line, clearly an unthinkable scenario as it would cause untold disruption and would be prohibitively expensive to put right.

It may be that this was also a factor in the choice for a smaller upgrade. I just am not aware that it was.

Victor

And to think Koeln Hbf has 17 parallel platforms and Brussels Midi 19.

Irish and Proud wrote:

Yep, the Interconnector is the one for me!

I'm feeling bullish.

[Joke] An old bull and a young bull are in the farmer's top field, where they have a view of the farm. After the farmer does his morning rounds, the young bull notices that the gate to the field with the cows hasn't been secured properly.

Excitedly, the young bull exclaims to the old bull: "Lets run down there and get us some cow!". Disinterestedly the older bull says "run away ...." which he does "... I'll walk down and get all the cows".

Folks we can get both tunnels, lets not trip over ourselves in the rush to get them.

strassenwolf

Prof_V wrote:

A connection to the Maynooth line did get looked at in the early stages of Interconnector planning (this proposal goes back at least to the 1940s, when it was intended to take freight trains from the Midland line into a new marshalling yard at Clondalkin), but was rejected.

Any ideas why it was rejected, Prof?

I'd never been aware of such a proposal, but there might be advantages to it - particularly if it is indeed planned to proceed with the absurd metrowest idea, which actually does make the connection.

One obvious advantage would be that it would allow Maynooth trains to travel through the city - through places like Heuston, Christchurch and D2 - rather than meandering around the northside through Broombridge, etc., and missing most of the busier parts of the city as it does so.

As discussed above, capacity in the interconnector certainly doesn't seem to be a problem.

Mackerski - the info about the platform layouts in Munich is much appreciated.

I was in Frankfurt last week, and a thought occurred to me about the capacity issue. And it's this.

Even though Frankfurt lies at the centre of the Rhine-Main S-Bahn system, and the city's population apparently doubles in the daytime, the system does link up several other reasonably large cities: Wiesbaden (population around 300,000), Mainz (approx. 200,000), Hanau (approx. 88,000), Darmstadt (ca. 140,000) and Offenbach (ca. 120,000).

One might expect, therefore, I think, that the system would be used for travel both into and out of Frankfurt and for travel between the above cities. More, one imagines, than would be the case between (for example) between Starnberg and Erding in Munich's system.

I would imagine that Munich's S-Bahn would exhibit a higher degree of "centrality" in this regard, than would the Rhine-Main S-Bahn. There might not be the demand for 30 trains per hour into Frankfurt itself, so it would therefore not be sensible to upgrade the signalling to the level necessary to accomodate this.

Is this correct?:o

Victor

strassenwolf wrote: »

One obvious advantage would be that it would allow Maynooth trains to travel through the city - through places like Heuston, Christchurch and D2 - rather than meandering around the northside through Broombridge, etc., and missing most of the busier parts of the city as it does so.

So Phibsborough, Drumcondra, Ballybough, Connolly and Pearse aren't busy?

strassenwolf

Victor wrote: »

So Phibsborough, Drumcondra, Ballybough, Connolly and Pearse aren't busy?

I think it would be fair to say that, overall, there is more demand to get to/from Heuston or Christchurch than any of the first three you mention. And if Maynooth/Navan trains were to travel through the interconnector - as the Prof indicated had been considered - they would travel to Pearse. Although they wouldn't travel to Connolly itself they wouldn't miss it by too much.

Particularly Ballybough, Victor. Fine part of the city that it is, and all, are there many people who actually need to go there?

I'd expect that the developments around Heuston - such as the development of the Telecom site - will further increase demand to get to that end of town. However, if the interconnector is ever built, Maynooth/Navan trains will be sailing merrily past it, on their way through Ballybough et al.:D

Even if the suggestion that the Prof. was talking about were to be built, could you not run some trains through the interconnector and some along the current route?

paulm17781

If Maynooth trains run through the IC, you would end up in a similar state to how the DART network is now. The way it is planned is the best way for it.

People can change at Pearse St. it isn't difficult.

Victor

I think the DART 1 DART 2 proposals work. In any case, people from along the route from Blancharstown to Connolly need to get to the city centre. Do you propose that they do so through the Interconnector? Through Leixlip? Phoenix Park?

strassenwolf wrote: »

Particularly Ballybough, Victor. Fine part of the city that it is, and all, are there many people who actually need to go there?

All the people that live there? It is one of the most densely populated areas of the city.

Prof_V

I don't know why exactly the link (which, contrary to what I said previously, would actually have gone from east of Confey to near Adamstown) was rejected. A Platform for Change states (on page 32 of the full report) that the line "is not the most efficient or direct way of servicing the strong trip demand from Lucan and other western areas"; in essence, the DTO seem to have seen it as a way of providing rail access to the bits of Lucan that aren't near an existing line, and they favoured the Lucan Luas instead. I think IÉ's own Dublin suburban rail study, which I've never seen, rejected it too, but I don't know why exactly.

By the way, the original concept for the Interconnector had Maynooth trains using it anyway; the two DART lines would have been NE-SE (as today) and NW-SW (e.g. Maynooth-Hazelhatch), rather than the NW-SE and NE-SW routes in the Dublin Rail Plan. I think this idea was dropped because operationally (passenger flows, level crossings etc.) it was better to pair the Maynooth line with Bray/Greystones than with the Cork line. (There's also the fact that very few people would want to travel Maynooth line-city-Kildare line, whereas at least some would travel cross-city in the Dublin Rail Plan network. On the minus side, pairing the lines in the way that's now preferred means breaking the existing Howth-Bray route, and there were some grumblings about this during the Interconnector consultation a while back.)

paulm17781

Prof_V wrote: »

By the way, the original concept for the Interconnector had Maynooth trains using it anyway; the two DART lines would have been NE-SE (as today) and NW-SW (e.g. Maynooth-Hazelhatch), rather than the NW-SE and NE-SW routes in the Dublin Rail Plan. I think this idea was dropped because operationally (passenger flows, level crossings etc.) it was better to pair the Maynooth line with Bray/Greystones than with the Cork line. (There's also the fact that very few people would want to travel Maynooth line-city-Kildare line, whereas at least some would travel cross-city in the Dublin Rail Plan network.

Some? quite a lot more like. It's the opening up of the city that is the important part.

Prof_V wrote: »

On the minus side, pairing the lines in the way that's now preferred means breaking the existing Howth-Bray route, and there were some grumblings about this during the Interconnector consultation a while back.)

That's just resistance to change. People are going to grumble either way but the current plan has easily the best frequencies. I'd think most will change their tune when they are getting the DART to Stephen's green.

bk

paulm17781 wrote:

That's just resistance to change. People are going to grumble either way but the current plan has easily the best frequencies. I'd think most will change their tune when they are getting the DART to Stephen's green.

Well of course for some people it will cause inconvenience. For instant the many people who live on the south side dart line, but work at East Point Business Park.

They will have to make a change now and unless their is integrated ticketing, greater expense too.

Of course the benefit for most out ways the inconvenience for some, but you can understand their objections.

strassenwolf

Victor wrote: »

I think the DART 1 DART 2 proposals work.

You may be right, Victor. But we shall see what happens. If there's a rapid connection between the east and west of the city, as proposed by this tunnel, I suspect that we may see areas like Christchurch, Heuston, Kilmainham, etc., becoming more important and desirable.

The current plans are essentially fixated on D2. We shall see in the long term if that is correct.

Only suspicion, I grant you.

Victor wrote: »

In any case, people from along the route from Blancharstown to Connolly need to get to the city centre.Do you propose that they do so through the Interconnector? Through Leixlip? Phoenix Park?

I think you'd still need to run Arrow trains along the current route, as I gather they wouldn't be able to run in the tunnel. So that wouldn't - or needn't - change.

I obviously don't know what route would be used to connect the two lines. The Prof. mentioned one above, though that might be a bit far out - geographically:p

Perhaps something along the lines of the section of the metrowest route between the two lines? So that bit of line could be used both to bring people into busy areas of the city from the Maynooth line, and also to bring people around a whole chunk of west Dublin.

A bit more expensive, probably, than building a LUAS line. But if only arrow trains were being used along a whole stretch of the current route, then you could save money by not having to electrify that bit.

Victor wrote: »

All the people that live there? It is one of the most densely populated areas of the city.

Fair point, Victor. Perhaps we should build a station there.

egan007

Just like to point out that at 5bn it's a steal.
It's a train through densely packed city.

paulm17781

bk wrote: »

They will have to make a change now and unless their is integrated ticketing, greater expense too.

I wouldn't expect Irish rail to be as useless that it will cost extra to change on their services. Integrated ticketing is more about single DART / Bus / Luas tickets.

weehamster

egan007 wrote: »

Just like to point out that at 5bn it's a steal.
It's a train through densely packed city.

I wish to point out that its not a steal. This will have very little impact in actually reducing the chronic traffic congestion. We could spend €5b on expanding the Dart to Drogheda, Navan, Maynooth, Kildare, Dublin Ariport (including doubling the track from 2 to 4 between Clontarf anf Howth Jtn), and linking them all up including the current Luas lines by the Interconnector. Now that would be a steal and actually reduce the traffic levels, and help free up the Bus network.

I also wish to point out that its is a tram (ie Luas) and not a train as most people seem to think it is. €5b for a Luas line is a lot of money.

marmajam

Weehamster, you spoil your argument with a bit of dishonesty. Whether you call metro north a train or a luas. or a moose....the point is it can carry at least the equivalent passengers per day as the DART
The interconnector/4 tracking to Howth junc/airport spur plan is a good one though it funnels most of Dublin commuters into the Connolly/Spencer Dock bottle neck. With a soon-to-be Swords population of 100,000, and 90.000 passengers a day average at Dublin airport (2015) it hard to see how that will work.
The factor that swung the decision in favour of metro north was the opening of a dedicated train corridor through O'Connell St, nth west Dublin, and on to north of Swords.
The interconnector is in T21 anyway, and the DART to Drogheda + 4tracking to Howth junc can be added on later.

trellheim

just reminders folks for those watching who aren't familiar

Interconnector = Heavy Rail [ deep tunnel ]
Luas = Tram on street with other traffic [ but gets priority :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:]
Metro North/ [ and West ] = Tram/Train whatever you call it, subsurface tunnels in the city :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:, overland otherwise and segregated completely

marmajam

Tellheim! you are clearly an expert of these fancy travel machines. In recognition, I am sponsoring you for free lifetime membership of the 'Sacred Church of Treehuggers Lite'.
Patron saint......St. Frankie McDonald the 'Big', high king of Tara St.
It's a liberal church - you can believe anything you like - though any proficiency in maths is very dirty. Execution followed by excommunication.
They will take you back to simpler, purer times when walking, and the horse and cart was enough. No messing about with tunnelling and cut and cover, draining the Liffey etc.
Big Frankie achieved this status after years and years of holy contemplation.
In a flash he realised it all. For 5 billion he could buy everyone in Dublin their own personal horse and cart.
He is the true champion of lo tech small is nice, having recently successfully built a homemade laptop, made only from pasticine and uranium.
He should be out of hospital in about 5 years.

constellation

marmajam wrote: »

Tellheim! you are clearly an expert of these fancy travel machines. In recognition, .... *snip*

trellheim

shucks boys why the GWB pic ?

Looks like there's different opinions out there but hey that's life ...


Should Interconnector be built ? Yep. Go for it right now it's the biggest priority. Tunnel yer little hearts out. Dig deep my friends.

Metro north yep tbm deepcore that puppy

Luas BX and D overground in the centre ? Fighty-fighty time

Dig up Westmoreland, College green and O'Connell St 3 separate times [ BX/D/Interconnector stations/Metro North ] ditto

BX/D get priority over buses ? fighty time


please please tell me how you'd do it.