Re-use the Port Tunnel for trains

Lennoxschips

A mad idea perhaps?

With the impending economic doom, not much new stuff is going to get built, so we should make use of the stuff that's already there.

The Port Tunnel has two tubes. One could be made HGV only, with no private cars allowed, and only HGVs allowed in. This tube could then be made bidirectional and would have more than enough capacity for the HGVs. (I suspect the Port Tunnel was part of a property scam to turn Dublin Port into a new Manhattan, that's why it was built as a four lane motorway. Now the property market is collapsed and it is a massive white elephant.)

The other Port Tunnel tube could be converted into a train route, forming a massive chunk of the future interconnector and doubling track capacity north out of the city.

What do ye think? I was having a look at the maps to see how it could be done. The new Spencer Dock station is located near to the Port Tunnel itself.

Would the trains fit?

First thoughts are; where do the trains go once they leave the north exit of the tunnel?

Lennoxschips

Looking at Google Maps images now, there are existing tracks very close to the south entrance of the tunnel. Hooking it up to the western tube of the Port Tunnel would be relatively simple. In fact, the interconnector could surface at Spencer dock and go straight into it.

At the Northern end you'd have to build some kind of a train viaduct for a couple of kilometres, till you get to open space. Then you could have a spur to the airport and the line continuing on to join the Belfast line.

If there was no money for an interconnector (a big possibility in the current climate), the line could be connected up to Connolly station for now, with a couple of new platforms. Suddenly loads of intercity services could be sent through the tunnel and DART capacity on the existing lines would increase massively.

BluntGuy

It's a pretty wild idea!

But it would have some great advantages, the only problem is how would you do it?

You could have a single-line track going through one of the port-tunnel tubes (I think it's two small for double-track which requires more clearance)...

But then, how would you link it up with the existing DART/Rail network?

Bluetonic

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The other Port Tunnel tube could be converted into a train route, forming a massive chunk of the future interconnector

None of the current port tunnel could be used to form a part of the proposed interconnector as they don't serve the same route.

Your idea is quite ridiculous regardless of the above.

I suggest we get a monorail.

Lennoxschips

I've got me crayons:



Blue is the line to Connolly, green the interconnector.

You could build the blue stuff first and the interconnector later, if necessary.

There is track nearly all the way to the tunnel already, and only industrial warehouses/empty lots/parking lots are in the way. They could be be demolished.

The tunnel would then be used for intercity services direct into the city (nonstop) with Dart continuing to use the old tracks out of the city, but with massively increased frequency.

You could have a single-line track going through one of the port-tunnel tubes (I think it's two small for double-track which requires more clearance)...

Feck, I was hoping double would be possible...

Lennoxschips

Bluetonic wrote: »

None of the current port tunnel could be used to form a part of the proposed interconnector as they don't serve the same route.

Your idea is quite ridiculous regardless of the above.

I suggest we get a monorail.

The interconnector goes under the south of the city, I understand that, but the idea is that it completes the interconnector by functioning as a northern tunnel as well.

Bluetonic

Lennoxschips wrote: »

If there was no money for an interconnector (a big possibility in the current climate), the line could be connected up to Connolly station for now, with a couple of new platforms. Suddenly loads of intercity services could be sent through the tunnel and DART capacity on the existing lines would increase massively.

There are only 8 intercity services a day each way, hardly loads?

Bluetonic

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The interconnector goes under the south of the city, I understand that, but the idea is that it completes the interconnector by functioning as a northern tunnel as well.

To serve what purpose though? With the cost involved you'd probably 4 track from Malahide to Connolly, which isn't going to happen either.

Lennoxschips

To serve what purpose? The tracks from going north out of the city are saturated. This doubles capacity.

With the cost involved you'd probably 4 track from Malahide to Connolly, which isn't going to happen either.

Yeah, that's something that needs to be looked into: which option would be cheaper. I don't know. I'm just floating an idea.

Bluetonic

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I'm just floating an idea.

Ah sure it's worth discussing anyhow, you know these sort of conversations they lead to all sort of places.

corktina

...and when the economy picks up, sure cant we build another tunnel for the trucks...


whatever it is you are smoking, please post me some....:cool:

markpb

I think it's a great idea for serving Swords and the airport if MN can't be built. The exit at the north could be tricky and, as far as I know, train tunnels in Ireland have to be twin bored so you couldn't run two dart trains in the same bore. Perhaps you could replace one lane in each bore with a train line?

I don't think it's entirely crazy, everyone keeps telling us the primary function of the tunnel is to get trucks to and from the port. Those trucks are legally limited to lane 1 so changing lane 2 to a train line doesn't stop the tunnel doing what it's meant to. I live beside the north exit and it doesn't look like there's much non-truck traffic in the tunnel.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

...and when the economy picks up, sure cant we build another tunnel for the trucks...


whatever it is you are smoking, please post me some....:cool:

/inhales....

why not just lay the track in the tunnel Tram style and just stop the traffic while the trains go through.

After all the tunnel's prime reasno for being there is for freight, there are lulls in traffic as ferries usually unload oll vehicles in one go followed by nothing till the next one.

/exhales...... :cool:

Lennoxschips

markpb wrote: »

I think it's a great idea for serving Swords and the airport if MN can't be built. The exit at the north could be tricky and, as far as I know, train tunnels in Ireland have to be twin bored so you couldn't run two dart trains in the same bore. Perhaps you could replace one lane in each bore with a train line?

I don't think it's entirely crazy, everyone keeps telling us the primary function of the tunnel is to get trucks to and from the port. Those trucks are legally limited to lane 1 so changing lane 2 to a train line doesn't stop the tunnel doing what it's meant to. I live beside the north exit and it doesn't look like there's much non-truck traffic in the tunnel.

Yeah, one bore hole would have done the trick for it to be a Port Tunnel for letting trucks in and out of the port.

I think whoever decided to build a full motorway was smoking something, not me.

The whole "Port" thing was just to sell it. I suspect the idea was to replace the port with a massive property development and then reuse the tunnel as a selling point to shift the property for high prices. The PDs were even hinting about it there last year. That's why it was built as four lanes.

The way I look at it, as the tunnel has been built twice as big as it needs to be, one of the tubes may as well be put to full use.

Lennoxschips

Deleted User wrote: »

/inhales....

why not just lay the track in the tunnel Tram style and just stop the traffic while the trains go through.

After all the tunnel's prime reasno for being there is for freight, there are lulls in traffic as ferries usually unload oll vehicles in one go followed by nothing till the next one.

/exhales...... :cool:

yeah, and why are two tunnels of two lanes each needed for the trucks? one tunnel of two lanes would suffice for the trucks... the only people losing out if vehicular traffic was reduced to one tunnel would be yuppies in mercs that would get stuck between the trucks. tough for them...

the thing is massively over-dimensioned.

jimmycrackcorm

Methinks those people who are saying that it is mad to have 4 lanes in the tunnel might have written the same about the M50 when it was first built.

Lennoxschips

The M50 filled up because it became a commuter motorway.

HGVs from boats aren't commuters. The amount of trucks coming on and off of boats is a fairly fixed number, because the Port of Dublin is pretty much capped as it is, at its current location.

I was looking at the northern exit of the Port Tunnel on Google Maps. A line up to the airport looks pretty feasible.

A single tunnel bore also look more than ample for two sets of tracks.

If you want double capacity out of the city and a line to the airport, this should be looked at and costed.

BrianD

There is absolutely no good reason to use the functionality that the port tunnel currently offers.

The cost involved in making the port tunnel work as a rail tunnel is impractical. There is no feasible rail link at the south end of the tunnel and where would the rail track go once it emerges at the north end? The cost of converting a road tunnel to a rail tunnel would be astronomical. At the moment the current LUAS lines have a height clearance of 6m and the tunnel can only accomodate trucks up to 4.65m so there isn't sufficient scope for even light rail.

While the RPA metro is a bad project at least the routing offers more utility to the north side of Dublin then utility offered by the tunnel.

corktina

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Yeah, one bore hole would have done the trick for it to be a Port Tunnel for letting trucks in and out of the port.

I think whoever decided to build a full motorway was smoking something, not me.

The whole "Port" thing was just to sell it. I suspect the idea was to replace the port with a massive property development and then reuse the tunnel as a selling point to shift the property for high prices. The PDs were even hinting about it there last year. That's why it was built as four lanes.

The way I look at it, as the tunnel has been built twice as big as it needs to be, one of the tubes may as well be put to full use.

I assume that you would be very foolish to have only one lane in a tunnel....the mind boggles at the prospect of a breakdown in there....:eek:

reality check guys.....:rolleyes:

Rockshamrover

Hey guys I did a post on this subject a few weeks ago. It's an alternative to the tunnel idea but would probably be costlier.

See below

Rockshamrover wrote: »

The main problem, as has been pointed out, is the diesel trains on the Dart line. A massively expensive solution to the problem would be to put an underground track or two, beneath the current tracks from say, Howth junction to Connolly. From Connolly, people would switch to the Dart ( which would now be much more frequent). Then from Bray there could be diesels to Greystones and beyond. That way you could leave the surface tracks free for darts.

A couple of 100 million should cover it:D

The tunnel is oversized, a comment repeated more than once above.

Yet you can't drive the "supersized" trucks through it because the roof of the tunnel is something like 10cm too low. They must go through the city :rolleyes:

Why don't they let the "supersized" ones go down the middle.....

Zoney

One reason the Port tunnel is motorway is that it is the first half of a planned completion of the M50 around the eastern side of Dublin to form a complete orbital motorway. There have been vague plans for this from the beginning. The Southeastern Motorway M50 section was planned as M11, with the M50 actually turning more towards the coast and underground to the city centre.

All a bit mad, but it was the 1970s. We only got the money to start implementing this in the 2000s. The same goes for some of the plans in the "Road Plans for the 1980s" published in 1979. They haven't got around to the Slane bypass which was in that document though.

loyatemu

Zoney wrote: »

One reason the Port tunnel is motorway is that it is the first half of a planned completion of the M50 around the eastern side of Dublin to form a complete orbital motorway. There have been vague plans for this from the beginning. The Southeastern Motorway M50 section was planned as M11, with the M50 actually turning more towards the coast and underground to the city centre.

this is why the junction numbering on the M11 starts at 5. Junctions 14-17 on the M50 will become M11 junctions 1-4. Don't expect to see it in tomorrow's budget though

astrofool

Deleted User wrote: »

The tunnel is oversized, a comment repeated more than once above.

Yet you can't drive the "supersized" trucks through it because the roof of the tunnel is something like 10cm too low. They must go through the city :rolleyes:

Why don't they let the "supersized" ones go down the middle.....

I remember talking about our tunnel to my non irish, not living/working out of Ireland, trucker uncle (me at the time thinking they were idiots building the tunnel). His reply was that to travel around Europe, the height limit is a lot lower than our tunnel, so it shouldn't make much of a difference for the few super size trucks there are.

Run_to_da_hills

Deleted User wrote: »

Why don't they let the "supersized" ones go down the middle.....

They can ft super sized trucks through as normal if they deflate their tyres a bit,

Irish and Proud

Lennoxschips wrote: »

yeah, and why are two tunnels of two lanes each needed for the trucks? one tunnel of two lanes would suffice for the trucks... the only people losing out if vehicular traffic was reduced to one tunnel would be yuppies in mercs that would get stuck between the trucks. tough for them...

the thing is massively over-dimensioned.

Given that you're Dutch and that your country happens to be the envy of Europe for road design (several tunnels, dyke-top roadways, 4 level stacks, 4x4 lane throughways etc), your comments are very surprising. Surely the Dutch understand that twin cell tunnels are not solely for the purpose of capacity, but also safety in that head on collisions are avoided. In the case of the DPT, your comments are akin to architects slamming of Glasgow's M8 without knowing a thing about it (parts of the M8 are ugly, but it has allowed vast traffic reduction and pedestrian/environmental enhancement measures in the centre of Glasgow!). Back to the DPT - first you have to understand the reasons for its construction:

1) to take most HGVs from Dublin's city centre;
2) to facilitate express bus services thereby enhancing public transport;
3) to provide a high quality link to Dublin's docklands - business trips etc;
4) to clear the way for pedestrian enhancement measures in the city centre;
5) to increase road safety for the city as a whole.

Apart from safety issues with the mech and elec aspect of the tunnel, this piece infrastructure seems to have worked quite well, though the full benefits won't be felt until the entire M50 upgrade works have been completed. Oh, about the 2nd lane in each direction - well, I think you need to read up a little on 2+2 road types - such roads have 2 extra lanes instead of hard-shoulders because the predicted traffic volumes would exceed the capacity for an S2 but would not economically justify a full DC cross section with H/S. The DPT's traffic needs would well fit the above mentioned specification.

Before making any comments on our infrastructure, please make sure you're furnished with the facts...

Regards!

Bluetonic

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Back to the DPT - first you have to understand the reasons for its construction:

1) to take most HGVs from Dublin's city centre;
2) to facilitate express bus services thereby enhancing public transport;
3) to provide a high quality link to Dublin's docklands - business trips etc;
4) to clear the way for pedestrian enhancement measures in the city centre;
5) to increase road safety for the city as a whole.

Where were these given as a reason for construction of the DPT? Seems to be your opinion and not actual reasons for construction.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Before making any comments on our infrastructure, please make sure you're furnished with the facts...

Behave yourself.

Lennoxschips

corktina wrote: »

I assume that you would be very foolish to have only one lane in a tunnel....the mind boggles at the prospect of a breakdown in there....:eek:

reality check guys.....:rolleyes:

There are plenty of bidirectional tunnels all around the world.

Given that you're Dutch

Erm... I'm from Cork.

Yes, the Dutch have four x four lane motorways, but only if capacity warrants it.

They'd have never built a Port Tunnel either. They relocated their major ports (Rotterdam, Amsterdam) further away from the city centre and redeveloped the wharfs as part of urban regeneration projects.

Lennoxschips

Lennoxschips wrote: »

There are plenty of bidirectional tunnels all around the world.

The old A55 north Wales coast road being one of them, now duelled with a second bore.

Lennoxschips

BrianD wrote: »

The cost involved in making the port tunnel work as a rail tunnel is impractical. There is no feasible rail link at the south end of the tunnel

I drew something on the first page, the south end is simple to hook into the western tube. At the north end you'd have to build a viaduct for a couple of hundred metres and then put it next to the motorway up to the airport. It could merge with the Belfast line further up.

It would offer a high speed link straight from the airport to Connolly station (and Spencer Dock/Interconnector later), and increase train capacity out of the city twofold. Plus you'd get a link from the north to Dublin airport as well.

The cost of converting a road tunnel to a rail tunnel would be astronomical.

How do you know that? Have you costed it? Perhaps it's just a case of laying the rails. Diesel trains could go in straightaway as the ventilation for truck fumes is in there already.

At the moment the current LUAS lines have a height clearance of 6m and the tunnel can only accomodate trucks up to 4.65m so there isn't sufficient scope for even light rail.

Luas has a high clearance because in an urban area the electric lines have to be kept at a sufficient height for safety reasons. The vertical clearance of a proper rail line might even fit within the 4.65 m. Does anybody know the vertical clearance for Irish trains? Your average truck is a bit taller than your average train, surely...

While the RPA metro is a bad project at least the routing offers more utility to the north side of Dublin then utility offered by the tunnel.

I'm not saying the metro shouldn't be built, but this could massively improve the railway network in Ireland.

peter1892

A couple of years back, when the RPA did their presentation for MN, I asked them why a tunnel couldn't have been built parallel to the Port Tunnel to take trains. Their answer was that Connolly was at capacity & couldn't handle any more traffic.

This was before the Docklands station opened.

It would offer a high speed link straight from the airport to Connolly station (and Spencer Dock/Interconnector later), and increase train capacity out of the city twofold. Plus you'd get a link from the north to Dublin airport as well.

Yes, that's what I've often thought myself.

Irish and Proud

Bluetonic wrote: »

Where were these given as a reason for construction of the DPT? Seems to be your opinion and not actual reasons for construction.

I think the reason relating to public transport was given later during the construction phase - but IMO, it's a clear advantage.

Business trips were not specifically given as a reason, but again when the docklands development programme was getting underway, the DPT was cited as an asset to same. Given the DCC and DTA transport policy in Dublin, one can assume that the DPT could only be an asset to the docklands area in the form of facilitating important business trips, where the high toll charge wouldn't make much difference.

Bluetonic wrote: »

Behave yourself.

OK, I'll be more careful!

Regards!

BrianD

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I drew something on the first page, the south end is simple to hook into the western tube.

Yeah, simple enough. There's a difference between drawing a line on a map and the project for real. I work in the area. I can see how impractical it is. You also have to take into account other properties that are there in the way and also the gradient of the tunnel at either end.

At the north end you'd have to build a viaduct for a couple of hundred metres and then put it next to the motorway up to the airport. It could merge with the Belfast line further up.

There's a touch of the Luas on stilts here again. Not only does a massive structure have to be built to raise the rail lines above the M1, it also has to clear the M50 junction. There is no alignment either side of the M50/M1 to accomodate it. It is so impractical it beggars belief.

It would offer a high speed link straight from the airport to Connolly station (and Spencer Dock/Interconnector later), and increase train capacity out of the city twofold. Plus you'd get a link from the north to Dublin airport as well.

You won't get high speed on the twisty turny route you're proposing. We don't need a rail route to the Airport. We need a route to Swords and if it serves the Airport en route then all the better.

How do you know that? Have you costed it? Perhaps it's just a case of laying the rails. Diesel trains could go in straightaway as the ventilation for truck fumes is in there already.

We all know how much the original tunnel cost and it's not a matter of just laying rails. The entire road in the tunnel would have to be stripped out in both bores and relaid with ballast, track, signalling and new ventilation. Then you have the massive modifications that would have to be made either end to allow the train access the tunnel. On top of this you have the cost of rail line north and south of the tunnel. Plus on top of this we lose our road access to Dublin Port.

]Luas has a high clearance because in an urban area the electric lines have to be kept at a sufficient height for safety reasons. The vertical clearance of a proper rail line might even fit within the 4.65 m. Does anybody know the vertical clearance for Irish trains? Your average truck is a bit taller than your average train, surely...

You still need the height for the over head lines though you could have an electric track but then you need different rolling stock and you add to the cost.

I'm not saying the metro shouldn't be built, but this could massively improve the railway network in Ireland.

I would estimate that the cost of the tunnell modification would exceed the cost of other projects that are proposed.

Lennoxschips

I think you are being overly negative. In the grand scheme of things, stripping out asphalt (you use a planer) and laying track is cheap. Many times cheaper than building a new tunnel. The ventilation is already in. We wouldn't lose road access to the port because I am only proposing to use one of the bores.

The 500 or so metres between the railway track at the port and the entrance to the tunnel is warehouses and empty lots.

The track wouldn't cross at the M50/M1 junction. Along the M1 you'd need about 200 metres of viaduct to cross the train line over from the western bore to the eastern side of the M1, where there's room to build track next to the motorway, all the way up to Swords. To give an idea of the cost of such a viaduct, in Amsterdam they built two 1600 metre curved train viaducts for 100 million euros. So 200 metres would cost you about 20 million.

I'm sure the whole project would be much cheaper than building an entire tunnel new from scratch, especially now that the price of the Port Tunnel is going through the roof.

dowlingm

I don't think heavy rail would work - but a light rail extension might, especially if APS was used to eliminate the need for overhead wires. Instead of one bore being exclusively used, one lane per bore could be used to simplify traffic flows and eliminate head-on risk in the public vehicle bore. Some of the trams could be cargotrams to bring freight from the Port to lorry parks on the M50.

The thing I would say about interconnector is that the cost saving of using the Port Tunnel, especially when figuring in stuff like reconfiguring the approach roads could be small in the context of the project but if the economy rebounded it would cost a bomb to recover the PT's capacity. The advantage interconnector folks will have over PT's is better knowledge of a TBM's progress in actual geology rather than just test bores and guesswork.

Irish and Proud

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I think you are being overly negative. In the grand scheme of things, stripping out asphalt (you use a planer) and laying track is cheap. Many times cheaper than building a new tunnel. The ventilation is already in. We wouldn't lose road access to the port because I am only proposing to use one of the bores.

What???

The load bearing requirements for heavy rail would be completely different given the intense point loads involved. The entire bottom half of the tunnel would probably need to be completely reconstructed to take account of such loading pressure.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The 500 or so metres between the railway track at the port and the entrance to the tunnel is warehouses and empty lots.

That land is probably bought and although land prices are falling sharply across the country, it would still be very expensive to acquire.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The track wouldn't cross at the M50/M1 junction. Along the M1 you'd need about 200 metres of viaduct to cross the train line over from the western bore to the eastern side of the M1, where there's room to build track next to the motorway, all the way up to Swords. To give an idea of the cost of such a viaduct, in Amsterdam they built two 1600 metre curved train viaducts for 100 million euros. So 200 metres would cost you about 20 million.

What are you talking about???

The M1/M50 North of the DPT rises fairly sharply towards the M1/M50/N32 interchange...

...and you want to build a viaduct there??? The only real solution to implement the rail route you propose would be to build another stretch of tunnel in order to keep the railway fairly level! You may as well build it long enough to clear both the M50 interchange as well as the M1/M50 Southbound.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I'm sure the whole project would be much cheaper than building an entire tunnel new from scratch, especially now that the price of the Port Tunnel is going through the roof.

Again, the reason we build twin tunnels in this country is for safety. The reason the we build 2 lanes in each direction is for safety - also, if one lane is blocked, the other lane can be used as long as it's safe to do so (at lower speed of course). Also, if the was a serious incident in the tunnel (like a truck on fire), the extra lane can double as an emergency lane for access purposes.

In any case, your idea is simply not going to happen!

Regards!

Lennoxschips

Irish and Proud wrote: »

What???

The load bearing requirements for heavy rail would be completely different given the intense point loads involved. The entire bottom half of the tunnel would probably need to be completely reconstructed to take account of such loading pressure

I'm not privy to the load bearing capacity of the tunnel, neither are you. It would have to be looked into. If it can't be done, it can't be done. If it can, it can.

What are you talking about???

The M1/M50 North of the DPT rises fairly sharply towards the M1/M50/N32 interchange...

...and you want to build a viaduct there??? The only real solution to implement the rail route you propose would be to build another stretch of tunnel in order to keep the railway fairly level! You may as well build it long enough to clear both the M50 interchange as well as the M1/M50 Southbound.

You can build a viaduct on an incline, it's possible. Otherwise you build the road as a viaduct, cars can have a steeper incline.

I don't see why you'd need to build it as far as the M1/50 junction. It's an incline, but it's not Mt. Everest we're talking about here.