Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

murphaph

Our opinions differ then. I think it'll be quad tracked at some stage.

monument

murphaph wrote: »

Our opinions differ then. I think it'll be quad tracked at some stage.

What with about 24 houses to CPO at most stations? And how many in between stations?

By the time they are finished designing it and sorting out the CPOs, separating IC and going around would be less costly -- hey, even tunneling the whole way to the city centre and beyond might be better value for money!

murphaph

What about double decking the track, 2 on the lower deck and 2 on the upper.

Sheldons Brain

What about double decking the track, 2 on the lower deck and 2 on the upper.

There's a lot of golf clubs, parks, big gardens etc. north of Connolly, so quad is possible. Double decker could work in a restriction, but would be very difficult to build while continuing service.

monument

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There's a lot of golf clubs, parks, big gardens etc. north of Connolly, so quad is possible. Double decker could work in a restriction, but would be very difficult to build while continuing service.

There's lots of big gardens? There seems to be far more small to tiny gardens and houses nearly right up to the railway line.

The pinch points at many stations alone should ring alarm bells.

Cool Mo D

Just tunnel express tracks from Clontarf Road to Clongriffin. No stations mean that tunnelling costs will be reasonable, and minimal disruption to services and CPOing. Smaller tunnel and similar length means it should be about the cost of the Port Tunnel.

murphaph

monument wrote: »

There's lots of big gardens? There seems to be far more small to tiny gardens and houses nearly right up to the railway line.

The pinch points at many stations alone should ring alarm bells.

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs as they say. Personally I feel that tunneling express bypass tracks is not a better solution as your rolling stock options are then severely limited. I seriously doubt that length of tunnel would be suitable for much of the diesel stock on the island.

roddney

I reckon tunnelling Dart would be only way but only when cost justified.

Can't send diesel trains through tunnell and not reasonable cost wise to electrify whole northern line.

Double decked track not possible due to 4 road and 2 (I think) foot bridges passing over track between Killester and Raheny villages. EIS would kill it too.

4 track difficult from Killester due to road bridges near villages. Impact of replacing would be severe. There are appartment blocks as well as houses in way.

Its easy to 4 track to a little pasy Clontarf. Maybe that wouldbe a good start.

I think IR actually owns strip of land at side of track that it leases to Clontarf Golf club.

End of day would come down to cost and environmental impact to local area during construction and operation after.

Cool Mo D

murphaph wrote: »

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs as they say. Personally I feel that tunneling express bypass tracks is not a better solution as your rolling stock options are then severely limited. I seriously doubt that length of tunnel would be suitable for much of the diesel stock on the island.

Absolutely no issue with any diesel trains using tunnels as long as there are no stations en route. The tunnel distance needed is about 7km, the same as the Severn tunnel between England and Wales, that has been used by diesel and steam trains for nearly 130 years.

monument

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Just tunnel express tracks from Clontarf Road to Clongriffin. No stations mean that tunnelling costs will be reasonable, and minimal disruption to services and CPOing. Smaller tunnel and similar length means it should be about the cost of the Port Tunnel.

While you're at it why not go to Dublin Airport and tunnel to somewhere around Broombridge? And then use the Cabra line and Phoenix Park Tunnel to Heuston?

And bing bang you now have: Cork -- Dublin Heuston -- Dublin Airport -- Belfast.

Heuston post-Dart Underground will be well connected to most of Dublin -- better connected than any station right now. A station at the airport would also give good access to North Dublin, both city and county. Express commuter trains could be slotted in between hourly Cork-Belfast services.

Three or four track north of Clongriffin if needed or over time for max segregation of local and intercity services.

murphaph wrote: »

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs as they say.

And do you want to guess how many houses you'd have to CPO?

Overall Ireland seems averse to egg breaking but it this case there seems like there would be too many eggs to break.

murphaph

Are we talking about cpoing entire properties even though they might be habitable with a smaller rear gardens?

Berlin is about to demolish several apartment blocks to extend a motorway. It's not popular in all corners but it's happening.

Sam Russell

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Absolutely no issue with any diesel trains using tunnels as long as there are no stations en route. The tunnel distance needed is about 7km, the same as the Severn tunnel between England and Wales, that has been used by diesel and steam trains for nearly 130 years.

We have not had diesel trains that long.:D

L1011

The GNR had begun planning for quad tracking in the 1950s, all new overbridges from then on to their dissolution were built wide enough and so on. It's unlikely to be as horrific a job as its being made sound.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The GNR had begun planning for quad tracking in the 1950s, all new overbridges from then on to their dissolution were built wide enough and so on. It's unlikely to be as horrific a job as its being made sound.

A lot has happened since the 1950s, even a lot has happened since 1995:

strassenwo!f

I'm off work at the moment, because of Christmas, so it's been nice to have a proper chance to catch up on the board.

First of all, I notice that the posters Monument and Jack Noble have ignored the many opportunities they've had, over the last few weeks, to clarify what exactly they mean by these "obvious problems" which would be involved with building a metro/DART interchange in a location such as College Green.

According to Jack, there are no engineering problems and there would be no problems with disruption, if the DART interconnector were to follow a shorter route through, say, College Green, rather than through the proposed St. Stephen's Green.

My feeling is that more needs to be heard from Jack, and Monument, about these "obvious problems", which they seem to know a lot about.

Anyway (in the absence of any further information, such as that which Jack or Monument might be able to provide, when the mood takes them), my feeling is this:

It seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to build the DART/metro interchange in somewhere more central than St. Stephen's Green, like perhaps College Green.

(i) you'd have a shorter, cheaper DART Underground, because you wouldn't need that big loop through St. Stephen's Green, thus allowing you to save money; and

(ii) instead of going with the current metro plan, of building a station at St. Stephen's Green, two stations at O'Connell Bridge [the RPA are effectively planning two stations at one location there, by building two station boxes, along with a lot of underground mining] and a station at Parnell Square (effectively 4 stations), you could achieve the same coverage of the city with a stand-alone station at St. Stephen's Geen, an interchange station in or around College Green, and a station further up O'Connell Street (just 3 stations).

In those circumstances you could get rid of the Parnell Square station entirely: The O'Connell Street station would be further up the street, so should cover most or all of the southside of the Parnell Street area, while still capable (with proper planning) of having a good connection, at the other end, with the LUAS red line).

I would also be in favour of writing off the earlier work on the Mater stop, and instead focus on a station in or around Temple Street, which would cover a larger catchment area, including Mountjoy Square and its environs, and the northern part of Parnell Square, and the Mater and Eccles Street, and so forth.

Temple Street should really be looked at more closely as a possible metro stop location. As far as I am aware, it hasn't been.

I feel. all in all, if that were implemented, it would result in a shorter, cheaper Dart Underground project, and a metro project which would cover the same area but would require a fewer number of station boxes and overall work.

Significant costs saved on both projects.

We need to hear more from the posters Jack and Monument about what they know of these "obvious" problems in College Green.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm off work at the moment, because of Christmas, so it's been nice to have a proper chance to catch up on the board.

First of all, I notice that the posters Monument and Jack Noble have ignored the many opportunities they've had, over the last few weeks, to clarify what exactly they mean by these "obvious problems" which would be involved with building a metro/DART interchange in a location such as College Green.

According to Jack, there are no engineering problems and there would be no problems with disruption, if the DART interconnector were to follow a shorter route through, say, College Green, rather than through the proposed St. Stephen's Green.

My feeling is that more needs to be heard from Jack, and Monument, about these "obvious problems", which they seem to know a lot about.

Anyway (in the absence of any further information, such as that which Jack or Monument might be able to provide, when the mood takes them), my feeling is this:

It seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to build the DART/metro interchange in somewhere more central than St. Stephen's Green, like perhaps College Green.

(i) you'd have a shorter, cheaper DART Underground, because you wouldn't need that big loop through St. Stephen's Green, thus allowing you to save money; and

(ii) instead of going with the current metro plan, of building a station at St. Stephen's Green, two stations at O'Connell Bridge [the RPA are effectively planning two stations at one location there, by building two station boxes, along with a lot of underground mining] and a station at Parnell Square (effectively 4 stations), you could achieve the same coverage of the city with a stand-alone station at St. Stephen's Geen, an interchange station in or around College Green, and a station further up O'Connell Street (just 3 stations).

In those circumstances you could get rid of the Parnell Square station entirely: The O'Connell Street station would be further up the street, so should cover most or all of the southside of the Parnell Street area, while still capable (with proper planning) of having a good connection, at the other end, with the LUAS red line).

I would also be in favour of writing off the earlier work on the Mater stop, and instead focus on a station in or around Temple Street, which would cover a larger catchment area, including Mountjoy Square and its environs, and the northern part of Parnell Square, and the Mater and Eccles Street, and so forth.

Temple Street should really be looked at more closely as a possible metro stop location. As far as I am aware, it hasn't been.

I feel. all in all, if that were implemented, it would result in a shorter, cheaper Dart Underground project, and a metro project which would cover the same area but would require a fewer number of station boxes and overall work.

Significant costs saved on both projects.

We need to hear more from the posters Jack and Monument about what they know of these "obvious" problems in College Green.

My last reply on the issue of College Green was as follows:

monument wrote: »

I don't buy the idea a route only around 1km shorter would add up to much savings.

And, even if it did, those savings would be wiped out by the extra costs of a station at Collage Green or O'Connell Bridge vs St Stephen's Green.

At this stage you also have to factor in the cost of one route having planning and the other having nothing on the drawing board.

You have yet to reply to my points within this post. Can you please do that?

Not only that but your views on the SSG stop seems to be still backed by your idea that there's a huge amount less passengers trips around the SSG -- a point with has been debunked by more than a few posters.

Worse still your random revisionism isn't stoping there. You're contradicting your self that you are looking for ways to save money with less station boxes but than you want to "write off" the Mater stop where the station box is already in place and build a new one a few 100 meters down the road for no good reason!

And than you're claiming your aim is a larger catchment moving stations but moving away from the Mater is moving away from the largest trip generator in that direct area.

Basically you want to [1] scrap all of the physical work on a station box, [2] redesign the whole route and all stops inside the canals, [3] such means go back to the public consultation and planning stage just to suit your College Green station idea.

You would also have to stop Luas BXD works and plan supports planned for Metro around the city centre.

I would not class myself as a supporter of MN and even to me that all seems like madness just because you don't like the lack of a station at College Green -- which is 5/10min walk to planned stations in different directions.

strassenwo!f

Unfortunately, yet another chance for monument to tell us about these "obvious" difficulties at College Green goes a-begging.

monument wrote: »

My last reply on the issue of College Green was as follows:

Originally Posted by monument


I don't buy the idea a route only around 1km
shorter would add up to much savings.

And, even if it did, those savings
would be wiped out by the extra costs of a station at Collage Green or O'Connell
Bridge vs St Stephen's Green.

At this stage you also have to factor in
the cost of one route having planning and the other having nothing on the
drawing board.

You have yet to reply to my points within this post. Can you please do that?

I'm afraid I forgot to reply to this, but certainly I will answer these questions. (Unlike you, who refuse to answer basic questions about these "obvious" problems at College Green).

A lot of the costs would be related to the start and finish of the project, the machines,etc. But a shorter tunnel through College Green should still result in savings of in or around 200 million euro in tunnelling costs.

And no, those savings wouldn't be wiped out by having stations at College Green and O'Connell Street. Remember, the RPA are effectively planning to build two very deep stations at O'Connell Bridge, along with mining out the whole platform area. Splitting those two up and building separate stations at O'Connell Street and College Green would not incur any greater costs in terms of manpower and materials. In fact, because the stations wouldn't need to be so deep, and you could incorporate the platforms directly into the stations,it would most probably result in further cost reductions.

And yes, I think you probably would have to go back to An Bord Pleanala for changes to the railway orders, and this would incur costs, but they would be minimal in comparison to both the overall costs of the metro and DART projects, and also minimal in comparison to the savings which would accrue (from the shorter interconnecter, and the reduced station costs either side of O'Connell Bridge)

monument wrote: »

Not only that but your views on the SSG stop seems to be still backed by your idea that there's a huge amount less passengers trips around the SSG -- a point with has been debunked by more than a few posters.

I don't think I said that, monument.

No, what I said was that there has been no evidence presented that St. Stephen's Green is a busier area than College Green, so why the longer route? And since no answers to this have been provided, nothing has, so far, been debunked.

If the interconnector were built through College Green, it would just be a simple change onto the metro or LUAS to get to St. Stephen's Green. This, to me, makes a lot more sense than building a longer route to achieve the same effect vis-a-vis College Green and the centre of the city.

monument wrote: »

Worse still your random revisionism isn't stoping there. You're contradicting your self that you are looking for ways to save money with less station boxes but than you want to "write off" the Mater stop where the station box is already in place and build a new one a few 100 meters down the road for no good reason!

There is a good reason. Overall, costs would be saved. And it would seem to bring at least as many (but most probably more) people to where they want to go.

monument wrote: »

And than you're claiming your aim is a larger catchment moving stations but moving away from the Mater is moving away from the largest trip generator in that direct area.

The Mater is a big trip generator. But that doesn't mean that the stop actually has to be in the Mater. (Because of the whole Children's Hospital thing, and with Bertie being the man in charge at the time the plans were made, they probably jumped the gun a bit on that one). I think having the stop near the Mater,but within better reach of busy locations like Mountjoy Square and the top of Parnell Square, would probably, in the long term, make more sense.

monument wrote: »

Basically you want to [1] scrap all of the physical work on a station box, [2] redesign the whole route and all stops inside the canals, [3] such means go back to the public consultation and planning stage just to suit your College Green station idea.

Unfortunately, because I'm sure a lot of work has gone into all of that, yes.

monument wrote: »

You would also have to stop Luas BXD works and plan supports planned for Metro around the city centre.

This really doesn't represent a problem. Cities all over the world are building interchanges where none had been planned at the beginning of their construction of underground rail infrastructure. Although Ireland is new to this stuff, and the DOT don't have any experience here, it really shouldn't be a problem.

monument wrote: »

I would not class myself as a supporter of MN and even to me that all seems like madness just because you don't like the lack of a station at College Green -- which is 5/10min walk to planned stations in different directions.

Monument, I don't live in Dublin (I visit the city only to see my parents and some friends), and I'm posting here under an assumed name. What possible benefit could accrue to me from pointing out the things I have on this thread?

LXFlyer

The line needs to serve Pearse Station to interconnect with the DART - it needs a wide enough arc to do that and still be approaching Spencer Dock from the right direction.

Routing via College Green would mean putting fairly tight curves in (and thereby reducing speed), which frankly is not that desireable - hence the SSG route.

Frankly, this whole discussion is a tad pointless - the planning process is complete. We need to get on and build the damn thing.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

The line needs to serve Pearse Station to interconnect with the DART - it needs a wide enough arc to do that and still be approaching Spencer Dock from the right direction.

Routing via College Green would mean putting fairly tight curves in (and thereby reducing speed), which frankly is not that desireable - hence the SSG route.

If you look at the route of the DART underground, starting from say Spencer Dock, you can see that it is heading directly along Pearse Street for a short time.

Directly towards College Green.

It then takes a marked southerly loop towards St. Stephen's Green. According to all of the available documentation from the Department of Transport and its various offshoots, this is to enable it to go to St. Stephen's Green and connect with the LUAS.

The reason for this loop was,that the LUAS was stuck at St. Stephen's Green, because of Mammy and her desire not to upset anyone in the centre of the city. Look at any of the documentation related to the interconnector in the early few years, and you'll see that. In fact, no other reason was ever given for the loop.

(At the time of the planning of the route, of course, the planners also believed that the centre of the Irish universe was St. Stephen's Green,because of the great success story that was Anglo-Irish Bank)

lxflyer wrote: »

Frankly, this whole discussion is a tad pointless - the planning process is complete. We need to get on and build the damn thing.

No, it's absolutely not pointless. There's no money, so the thing is not going to be built for a considerable time. The country hasn't a bean and has bigger priorities on its hands than building expensive underground railway lines. Even if it had the cash, it would currently be impossible to fork out that kind of money on the project.

So the urgency with the project is gone. Now, let's try and get it right.













no

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If you look at the route of the DART underground, starting from say Spencer Dock, you can see that it is heading directly along Pearse Street for a short time.

Directly towards College Green.

It then takes a marked southerly loop towards St. Stephen's Green. According to all of the available documentation from the Department of Transport and its various offshoots, this is to enable it to go to St. Stephen's Green and connect with the LUAS.

The reason for this loop was,that the LUAS was stuck at St. Stephen's Green, because of Mammy and her desire not to upset anyone in the centre of the city. Look at any of the documentation related to the interconnector in the early few years, and you'll see that. In fact, no other reason was ever given for the loop.

(At the time of the planning of the route, of course, the planners also believed that the centre of the Irish universe was St. Stephen's Green,because of the great success story that was Anglo-Irish Bank)



No, it's absolutely not pointless. There's no money, so the thing is not going to be built for a considerable time. The country hasn't a bean and has bigger priorities on its hands than building expensive underground railway lines. Even if it had the cash, it would currently be impossible to fork out that kind of money on the project.

So the urgency with the project is gone. Now, let's try and get it right.













no

At no point is the DART Underground route heading directly east/west until it reaches St Stephen's Green (as you can clearly see from the map below http://www.irishrail.ie/media/1ERouteSchematic1.pdf)

Please stop posting nonsense such as this.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

At no point is the DART Underground route heading directly east/west until it reaches St Stephen's Green (as you can clearly see from the map below http://www.irishrail.ie/media/1ERouteSchematic1.pdf)

Please stop posting nonsense such as this.

In the current plan it doesn't head east-west at any stage. But this is a terribly minor issue, lxflyer.

Certainly not capable, one would think, of being derided as nonsense.

There are numerous images on the internet of maps of the proposed interconnector showing it travelling directly east-west for a time. One of these is linked below, on page 16 of a 44 page document presented to the rulers of the city through which the interconnector, in its entirety, will be built.

http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/Documents/Taking_the_Dart_underground.pdf

In any case, it really should not be a problem to build an underground line linking Spencer Dock, Pearse Station, College Green and Heuston - apart, of course, from these "obvious" problems in College Green that posters like monument and Jack Noble refuse to tell us about.

(The obvious problems that, it appears, dare not speak their name).

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In the current plan it doesn't head east-west at any stage. But this is a terribly minor issue, lxflyer.

Certainly not capable, one would think, of being derided as nonsense.

There are numerous images on the internet of maps of the proposed interconnector showing it travelling directly east-west for a time. One of these is linked below, on page 16 of a 44 page document presented to the rulers of the city through which the interconnector, in its entirety, will be built.

http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/Documents/Taking_the_Dart_underground.pdf

In any case, it really should not be a problem to build an underground line linking Spencer Dock, Pearse Station, College Green and Heuston - apart, of course, from these "obvious" problems in College Green that posters like monument and Jack Noble refuse to tell us about.

(The obvious problems that, it appears, dare not speak their name).

You said it went along Pearse Street - It does not in any way do this, that's my point - that post was utter nonsense.

I am going to again repeat myself - the reason the current route was chosen is to allow Pearse Station to be served. Trying to curve back to serve College Green would be too tight without imposing speed restrictions.

You just seem to completely blot this out as being any way possible, but having spoken to the lead engineer at one stage, this is exactly what he told me.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

You said it went along Pearse Street - It does not in any way do this, that's my point - that post was utter nonsense.

I don't recall mentioning Pearse Street on this thread, but in any case you can see from the map in my previous post that it could go along or beside Pearse Street, without any difficulty.

Once again, not worthy of being derided as nonsense.

lxflyer wrote: »

I am going to again repeat myself - the reason the current route was chosen is to allow Pearse Station to be served. Trying to curve back to serve College Green would be too tight without imposing speed restrictions.

Look at the map which I linked above. No extra curving required. Once it's done that curve from Spencer Dock, just tell that TBM to go straight on.

lxflyer wrote: »

You just seem to completely blot this out as being any way possible, but having spoken to the lead engineer at one stage, this is exactly what he told me.

Well, of course he told you that. His task was to build what is effectively a north-south oriented station/tunnel (to enable the interconnector to do the large southerly loop via St. Stephen's Green).

If his task were to build an east-west station, to allow the interconnector to take a straight route via College Green, I'm sure he'd be able to do that too.

strassenwo!f

Now that lxflyer's queries about the Spencer Dock-Pearse section of the proposed interconnector have been dealt with, can we now go back and focus on the city centre bit?

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I don't recall mentioning Pearse Street on this thread, but in any case you can see from the map in my previous post that it could go along or beside Pearse Street, without any difficulty.

Once again, not worthy of being derided as nonsense.

You clearly have a very short term memory as that was exactly the reason you suggested I was incorrect only yesterday!!!

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If you look at the route of the DART underground, starting from say Spencer Dock, you can see that it is heading directly along Pearse Street for a short time.

Directly towards College Green.

It then takes a marked southerly loop towards St. Stephen's Green.

I don't mind someone having an alternative view, but posting pure nonsense as the above quote is when trying to tell someone else they are wrong is not playing fair.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Look at the map which I linked above. No extra curving required. Once it's done that curve from Spencer Dock, just tell that TBM to go straight on.

Well, of course he told you that. His task was to build what is effectively a north-south oriented station/tunnel (to enable the interconnector to do the large southerly loop via St. Stephen's Green).

If his task were to build an east-west station, to allow the interconnector to take a straight route via College Green, I'm sure he'd be able to do that too.

Ok so - frankly do you honestly think he would have better things to do than be less than honest in response to a direct question that I asked? That's bordering on questioning someone's professional integrity.

The more you continue in this thread with your view, the more it is becoming clear that they have no basis at all other than some wild pipedreams that you seem to have.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Now that lxflyer's queries about the Spencer Dock-Pearse section of the proposed interconnector have been dealt with, can we now go back and focus on the city centre bit?

Firstly - there's no need to keep putting everyone's name in bold - we can read.

Secondly - my posts were not "queries" - they were statements. You just don't want to accept them as such as they are contrary to your vision. The city centre route is dictated by the need to serve Pearse and to maintain decent speeds through the tunnel.

That last part of my post came directly from a conversation I had with the engineer - if you want to effectively question the man's professional integrity, which is what you appear to be doing, then fine, all I can say is that your posts are beginning to look even more daft.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer, I have no desire to question the man's professional integrity.

The task which he was given was to build a line with a marked southerly loop via St. Stephen's Green. Of necessity, this requires what is basically a north-south oriented station at Pearse to enable the line to do this loop. I'm sure, if that proposed line ever gets built, he will do that task extremely well.

But it's also clear, from the map presented to the city fathers (and many other maps), linked above, that there is no obvious barrier to building an east-west oriented station at Pearse, to enable the interconector to cross the city without the St. Stephen's Green loop. If the man you spoke were to be given that task, I'm sure he would also do a great job there.

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

lxflyer, I have no desire to question the man's professional integrity.

The task which he was given was to build a line with a marked southerly loop via St. Stephen's Green. Of necessity, this requires what is basically a north-south oriented station at Pearse to enable the line to do this loop. I'm sure, if that proposed line ever gets built, he will do that task extremely well.

But it's also clear, from the map presented to the city fathers (and many other maps), linked above, that there is no obvious barrier to building an east-west oriented station at Pearse, to enable the interconector to cross the city without the St. Stephen's Green loop. If the man you spoke were to be given that task, I'm sure he would also do a great job there.

All of that ignores the fact that I specifically asked about routing it closer to the River (and avoiding SSG) and that was the answer I was given.

Just because it's not what you want to hear does not mean that it isn't right.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

All of that ignores the fact that I specifically asked about routing it closer to the River (and avoiding SSG) and that was the answer I was given.
Just because it's not what you want to hear does not mean that it isn't right.

It doesn't mean that it isn't right, but it also doesn't mean that it is.

The man had a task, which was to build a line through St. Stephen's Green and to connect with the LUAS there. Is he going to say anything different?

lucernarian

lxflyer wrote: »

You said it went along Pearse Street - It does not in any way do this, that's my point - that post was utter nonsense.

I am going to again repeat myself - the reason the current route was chosen is to allow Pearse Station to be served. Trying to curve back to serve College Green would be too tight without imposing speed restrictions.

You just seem to completely blot this out as being any way possible, but having spoken to the lead engineer at one stage, this is exactly what he told me.

I have to say the idea of speed restrictions with regards to DART Underground is something of a red herring. The tunnel is hardly carrying a high-speed rail line and a short e.g. 40 kph speed restriction on a line that will mainly carry electric trains will not change much. What would it add to journey times? An extra 30 to 45 seconds? It's not something I care strongly about but in the context of locating stations within the city centre, the idea of a short speed restriction would be very very small in comparison to ensuring the best possible locations for stations... This ignores any extra engineering and construction complexity due to having a tighter curve but would that be an issue at all?

monument

Will reply to other points later, for now....

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But it's also clear, from the map presented to the city fathers (and many other maps), linked above, that there is no obvious barrier to building an east-west oriented station at Pearse, to enable the interconector to cross the city without the St. Stephen's Green loop. If the man you spoke were to be given that task, I'm sure he would also do a great job there.

This is just plain wrong. Both of these images are from the document you linked to...

This is a diagram which is not geographically accurate:



This is a map, again from the document you linked to:



What you are suggesting overall involves going back to the drawing board (followed by fresh public consultation and a new planning process) for all of or nearly all of Dart Underground and Metro North within the canals and possibly beyond. Writing off a ton of costly design and planning work and physical work done at the Mater, work soon to happen connected to Luas BXD, and possibly also work at Pearse.

It's beyond belief that you keep claiming that your way would save cost.