HR8+ - DART and Intercity link to Dublin Airport, reusing Metro North Route plus more

monument

This started on the Fingal / North Dublin Transport Study thread but I'm going to break it out of there because it has wider appeal and it's no harm pushing the idea at this point. This idea isn't fully in the Fingal transport study report mentioned that thread, it's mostly a mix of a few options in the report.

...plus maybe add the orange bit, and also use of the Glasnevin to Heuston link mainly for a Belfast - Dublin Airport - Heuston - Cork service:



Larger image here. Please excuse the rushed and poor Photoshopping! A and B around Swords are options, but A clearly would be better for Intercity. All but the orange bit between Glasnevin and the Docklands portal are part of the report.

Here's another type of overview:

• Orange = Dart Underground (which this hinges on)
• Red = Current route Docklands Dart Underground portal to Glasnevin Junction to be upgraded to Dart
• Blue = Glasnevin Junction to Phoenix Park Tunnel Heuston
• Yellow = core HR8+ new track and tunnel works (same as Metro North route between DCU and north Swords)

The benefits of the route:

• Serves most of Metro North route and more
• Serves Dublin Airport with regional, local and Intercity links
• More local connectivity -- ie a service which would take in the north Dublin coastal towns (ie Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush and Lusk, Donabate) to Swords, Airport and onwards. This would connect workplaces and shopping/entertainment centres to nearby residential areas -- a link with currently is heavily used by motorised traffic on a congested and (largely poor) road network and poorer public transport.
• More regional connectivity: Directly connecting places like Drogheda to Swords/DUB; Kildare to Swords/DUB; West Dublin to Swords/DUB etc.
• More national connectivity: Intercity services to Dublin Airport; at the very least direct Cork - Dublin - Dublin Airport - Belfast services. You could also terminate some Galway etc services at Dublin Airport.
• For the above it has more local and national appeal and is more likely to be built.
• Would make up part of the T-TEN route which is better for funding.

Pete_Cavan

I think what you are getting at is using the rail line along the Royal Canal for HR8 instead of the elevated line via Drumcondra Station? I have suggested this before elsewhere.

This makes a lot of sense because the line along the Royal Canal could be exclusively for airport/Swords services which offers huge capacity and fast journey times, airport/Swords could travel to SSG via the DU tunnel and services from Hueston could travel to the airport using the PPT and HR8 tunnel. The cost of a new junction at Glasnevin would be significant but the space is there to do it, it makes use of an existing underutilised line and the result would be fast and reliable airport services with great interconnectivity with existing (and expanded) Dart, Intercity and Luas services. It also makes better use of the DU tunnel (if it ever gets built) giving more bang for your buck for that particular piece of infrastructure.

lucernarian

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think what you are getting at is using the rail line along the Royal Canal for HR8 instead of the elevated line via Drumcondra Station? I have suggested this before elsewhere.

This makes a lot of sense because the line along the Royal Canal could be exclusively for airport/Swords services which offers huge capacity and fast journey times, airport/Swords could travel to SSG via the DU tunnel and services from Hueston could travel to the airport using the PPT and HR8 tunnel. The cost of a new junction at Glasnevin would be significant but the space is there to do it, it makes use of an existing underutilised line and the result would be fast and reliable airport services with great interconnectivity with existing (and expanded) Dart, Intercity and Luas services. It also makes better use of the DU tunnel (if it ever gets built) giving more bang for your buck for that particular piece of infrastructure.

Looking at Glasnevin Junction, can this be possibly built? If it's even possible to fit in a tunnel portal there, you would have to close off the Maynooth/Sligo line for a prolonged period of time.

Aard

I've always fancied HR8 Optimised (to use NTA lingo) as the best option from that study.

- Swords: don't bypass the town. It will encourage westward sprawl. Swords can get by with a straight route through the town with two stations only.

- Glasnevin Jctn: anything can be engineered; it's just a matter of cost.

- Heuston: should have a triangular junction allowing access to interconnector eastbound.

lucernarian

Aard wrote: »

- Swords: don't bypass the town. It will encourage westward sprawl. Swords can get by with a straight route through the town with two stations only.

The area that's served by the eastern route already has access to express and local bus services, and the swiftway proposal is also marked to run along the "Swords Bypass" R132 alignment. Having all manner of public transport use the same narrow corridor may not be a good idea.

- Glasnevin Jctn: anything can be engineered; it's just a matter of cost.

... And disruption to any combination of or ALL of the following: The only train line to link the eastern and northern train network with the southern and western lines until Dart Underground is built; ALL Intercity, Commuter (and DART if built after DU) services between Connolly/Docklands and Broombridge; a secondary school; nearby residential streets and apartment blocks; a canal; one of Ireland's most important historic sights and its largest graveyard is completely surrounded in one part by the railway lines in question, and the main cemetery area which is to be tunnelled underneath has less than 250 metres separating it from where the tracks are to emerge and join the existing line.

I think the engineering and cost considerations of building a DART Underground station at College Green instead of Stephen's Green would be trivial in the face of the above but that's just my own estimation.

If the engineering, planning and legal obstacles can be overcome, what will the cost of this be compared to "optimised" Metro North?

- Heuston: should have a triangular junction allowing access to interconnector eastbound.

Trying to imagine this... Isn't the interconnector AKA DART Underground going to surface after Heuston, in the vicinity of Inchicore?

end of the road

BRT and express bus services aren't a good reason not to consider this project at least. for me, the grave yard would be an issue but with a bit of luck it could be got around some way as it is a hystoric site and its not worth potentially aultering or god forbid destroying in any way for a rail link

Chris_5339762

Looks good. Add my idea of a Luas/Heavy Rail interchange where they cross over just north of the Phoenix Park tunnel near Cabra and its a go-er.

Aard

One of the major advantages of HR8-"Optimised" (thank you, NTA, for that wonderful suffix) is redundancy in the Northern line. Without major and complex CPO'ing it'll be difficult to increase capacity into Connolly. With the proposed project, capacity into Central Dublin would be doubled. This option would have major positive impacts for a Drogeda and other towns north of Swords. I'm really surprised that those local councillors (even TDs) are not cheerleading such a project. I guess it shows the calibre of our elected representitives.

monument

Aard wrote: »

One of the major advantages of HR8-"Optimised" (thank you, NTA, for that wonderful suffix) is redundancy in the Northern line. Without major and complex CPO'ing it'll be difficult to increase capacity into Connolly. With the proposed project, capacity into Central Dublin would be doubled. This option would have major positive impacts for a Drogeda and other towns north of Swords. I'm really surprised that those local councillors (even TDs) are not cheerleading such a project. I guess it shows the calibre of our elected representitives.

Exactly.

HR8+ has huge and widespread benefits. But I suppose it needs vision and understanding -- and those things have to be pushed. Irish Rail are still finding it hard to get Dart Underground over the line so adding on HR8+ might be too much for them until Dart UG is in the bag.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think what you are getting at is using the rail line along the Royal Canal for HR8 instead of the elevated line via Drumcondra Station? I have suggested this before elsewhere.

This makes a lot of sense because the line along the Royal Canal could be exclusively for airport/Swords services which offers huge capacity and fast journey times, airport/Swords could travel to SSG via the DU tunnel and services from Hueston could travel to the airport using the PPT and HR8 tunnel. The cost of a new junction at Glasnevin would be significant but the space is there to do it, it makes use of an existing underutilised line and the result would be fast and reliable airport services with great interconnectivity with existing (and expanded) Dart, Intercity and Luas services. It also makes better use of the DU tunnel (if it ever gets built) giving more bang for your buck for that particular piece of infrastructure.

Exactly what I had in mind, should have included something like this in the opening post:

Dark grey = Maynooth line / elevated line via Drumcondra Station
Orange = Dart Underground (which this hinges on)
Red = Current route Docklands Dart Underground portal to Glasnevin Junction to be upgraded to Dart
Blue = Glasnevin Junction to Phoenix Park Tunnel Heuston
Yellow = core HR8+ new track and tunnel works (same as Metro North route between DCU and north Swords)

Aard wrote: »

- Heuston: should have a triangular junction allowing access to interconnector eastbound.

Sadly the potential for circle line services is not there because Dart Underground will not surface in Heuston.

end of the road wrote: »

BRT and express bus services aren't a good reason not to consider this project at least. for me, the grave yard would be an issue but with a bit of luck it could be got around some way as it is a hystoric site and its not worth potentially aultering or god forbid destroying in any way for a rail link

I think you could go underground in or around Glasnevin junction and avoid the graveyard, but I think the graveyard is the better option over a larger residential area and the historic buildings end of the Botanic Gardens.

lucernarian wrote: »

... And disruption to any combination of or ALL of the following: The only train line to link the eastern and northern train network with the southern and western lines until Dart Underground is built; ALL Intercity, Commuter (and DART if built after DU) services between Connolly/Docklands and Broombridge; a secondary school; nearby residential streets and apartment blocks; a canal; one of Ireland's most important historic sights and its largest graveyard is completely surrounded in one part by the railway lines in question, and the main cemetery area which is to be tunnelled underneath has less than 250 metres separating it from where the tracks are to emerge and join the existing line.

I think the engineering and cost considerations of building a DART Underground station at College Green instead of Stephen's Green would be trivial in the face of the above but that's just my own estimation.

A few things: There's no apartment blocks of note near Glasnevin junction; nobody is suggesting digging up the graveyard; HR8 would clearly follow Dart Underground as it hinges on it; we're talking about a multi-billion-euro project so a secondary school could be moved if needed; dealing with railways when upgrading or putting in new lines around old one is commonplace all around the world.

Building an underground station at College Green in one of the most dense city centre locations, with a very high volume of high grade historic buildings (many with basements), and a location which is one of the busiest bus and pedestrian streets in the country, and one which will soon have Luas tracks over it is not comparable to building building 1 or 2 tunnel portals around railway tracks, some green sites, railway sites and (historically speaking) unprotected, low density housing (which can be CPOed if needed).

Look at Cross Rail -- most of its sites are far more confined that around Glasnevin junction.

Aard

Wrt the Heuston/PPT issue. I would have imagined that immediately to the west of Heuston Underground, the tracks would fork: one fork to Inchicore as planned, and the other continuing underground to join with the PPT line underneath the Phoenix Park.

I think access to the Interconnector eastbound would be essential for HR8 to be a success.

noelfirl

Aard wrote: »

Wrt the Heuston/PPT issue. I would have imagined that immediately to the west of Heuston Underground, the tracks would fork: one fork to Inchicore as planned, and the other continuing underground to join with the PPT line underneath the Phoenix Park.

I think access to the Interconnector eastbound would be essential for HR8 to be a success.

Current design is for DART underground to emerge in the Inchicore works area. Emerging in Heuston was considered AFAIK, but was binned because a huge chunk of station beyond the concourse would have to have been ripped up.

Aard

Yes I understand that. I wasn't suggesting that the tunnel emerge in and around Heuston, but rather that it continue under the Liffey and join the PPT underground just before the Zoo.

lucernarian

Aard wrote: »

Wrt the Heuston/PPT issue. I would have imagined that immediately to the west of Heuston Underground, the tracks would fork: one fork to Inchicore as planned, and the other continuing underground to join with the PPT line underneath the Phoenix Park.

I think access to the Interconnector eastbound would be essential for HR8 to be a success.

[strike]The Metro Dublin idea had a similar tunnel portal idea in the vicinity of Heuston station. I assume you've read the AECOM report so I don't know why you haven't parked that idea indefinitely.[/strike] I see you're thinking of basically an underground tunnel junction somewhere between Heuston and Christchurch. That seems quite expensive in itself but without seeing more of such a proposal I wouldn't want to comment on it. What I can't see happening is a tunnel that can be constructed under the Liffey that can then climb towards the level of the PPT which is itself rising as it passes underneath the Phoenix Park, to the level it emerges parallel to the North Circular Road. Back-of-envelope stuff but there could be 10 metres separating the height of the PPT tracks and where the under-river tunnel tracks would be.

monument wrote:

A few things: There's no apartment blocks of note near Glasnevin junction; nobody is suggesting digging up the graveyard; HR8 would clearly follow Dart Underground as it hinges on it; we're talking about a multi-billion-euro project so a secondary school could be moved if needed; dealing with railways when upgrading or putting in new lines around old one is commonplace all around the world.

A few more things: How long is a piece of string? There is terraced housing and a block of flats where Clermont Lawns and Clermont Court are. I'm sure the residents would feel rather differently. That is just your opinion and no one yet can forsee the extent of disruption to that either due to the amount and the cost of reclamation along with any possible local protest. "Nobody is suggesting digging up the graveyard" - Then explain how a tunnel portal supporting a gentle gradient can be accommodated on a piece of land that's 100 by 150 metres, or 200 by 150 metres if we assume that relocating, building and then demolishing a secondary school in Dublin 7 isn't going to cost much. Because I can't fathom how it could be done with St. Vincent's left standing. And the tunnel boring machines can't just pop out like moles at the back of the school and wave to everybody. There'll be some length of cut and cover tunnel needed along with the actual TBM portal, leading up to the Sligo/Maynooth line.

I have seen no proposal yet to "deal" with the minor issue of Maynooth/Sligo/PPT tracks so I shall assume that means closing said lines for many months to a couple of years, along with whatever cost is involved of lost pax and replacement bus services. I don't know what evidence you have to show the economic costs of surmounting these challenges are. No matter how "commonplace" you may think building a railway tunnel between two large cemeteries, aligned almost from one to the other, would be.

I've also seen nothing yet concerning either the canal and the impact on it, or what Waterways Ireland's response will be. Nor have you yet mentioned how the graveyards wouldn't be impacted upon. One part of the cemetery is literally surrounded by the Glasnevin Junction lines and the flyover and at most is 250 metres away from the main (and most historical) part of the cemetery and at a minimum it is only 100 metres away.

Building an underground station at College Green in one of the most dense city centre locations, with a very high volume of high grade historic buildings (many with basements), and a location which is one of the busiest bus and pedestrian streets in the country, and one which will soon have Luas tracks over it is not comparable to building building 1 or 2 tunnel portals around railway tracks, some green sites, railway sites and (historically speaking) unprotected, low density housing (which can be CPOed if needed).

Here's something relevant from CrossRail: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/tunnelling/western-tunnels-royal-oak-to-farringdon/royal-oak-portal. Tunnel portal is only 21 metres wide, but a whopping 285 metres long.... and at Royal Oak, the tunnel entrance is aligned in parallel to the existing main line tracks out of Paddington. HR8 involves a tunnel alignment almost perpendicular to both the PPT line and the Sligo/Maynooth line.

It's disingenuous to leave out the possible impact on the cemetery sites in the immediate vicinity, unless you're referring to them as two of the green sites:eek:

noelfirl

Aard wrote: »

Yes I understand that. I wasn't suggesting that the tunnel emerge in and around Heuston, but rather that it continue under the Liffey and join the PPT underground just before the Zoo.

Ah sorry, I get you now.

Aard

lucernarian wrote: »

What I can't see happening is a tunnel that can be constructed under the Liffey that can then climb towards the level of the PPT which is itself rising as it passes underneath the Phoenix Park, to the level it emerges parallel to the North Circular Road. Back-of-envelope stuff but there could be 10 metres separating the height of the PPT tracks and where the under-river tunnel tracks would be.

There is about 660m between the Liffey and where the tracks would join near the Zoo / North Circular. A grade of 3.5% would allow a rise of 23m. Perhaps the existing track in the cutting north of the tunnel could be modified to allow for this. I'm not an engineer; I don't know how possible all this is. But I do think it's worth being looked at and definitively ruled out.

(Incidentally, this is not what was suggested by Cormac Rabbitte. His suggestion didn't use the Interconnector, but his own realigned version.)

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

A few more things: How long is a piece of string? There is terraced housing and a block of flats where Clermont Lawns and Clermont Court are. I'm sure the residents would feel rather differently. That is just your opinion...

Indeed there is a small number of terraced houses and a small block of flats. It's not just my opinion, the option of CPOing houses has to be kept open for any large project, be it rail or motorway or even key normal road etc.

lucernarian wrote: »

"Nobody is suggesting digging up the graveyard" - Then explain how a tunnel portal supporting a gentle gradient can be accommodated on a piece of land that's 100 by 150 metres, or 200 by 150 metres if we assume that

There's more than one potential tunnel portal site.

lucernarian wrote: »

relocating, building and then demolishing a secondary school in Dublin 7 isn't going to cost much. Because I can't fathom how it could be done with St. Vincent's left standing.

I'm not saying the only option is to use the school land or demolish the school (there'd be no need for the option of CPOing houses if that was the case), but do you know the area well? Can you not think of any sites within 500m which could more than accommodate the school temporarily or otherwise?

Where did I say it was not going to cost much? I said: we're talking about a multi-billion-euro project so a secondary school could be moved if needed, and nothing about it not costing much.

lucernarian wrote: »

And the tunnel boring machines can't just pop out like moles at the back of the school and wave to everybody. There'll be some length of cut and cover tunnel needed along with the actual TBM portal, leading up to the Sligo/Maynooth line.

Yes, that's standard.

It's included in what Cross Rail refers to "285m long ramp structure that takes the Crossrail tracks from ground-level down into the underground tunnels".

lucernarian wrote: »

I have seen no proposal yet to "deal" with the minor issue of Maynooth/Sligo/PPT tracks so I shall assume that means closing said lines for many months to a couple of years, along with whatever cost is involved of lost pax and replacement bus services. I don't know what evidence you have to show the economic costs of surmounting these challenges are.

The PPT tracks importance lowers once Dart Underground is in place.

My suggestion would be to keep the Maynooth/Sligo open except for the usual short-term closures it takes to divert the line / built cut and cover under it / etc. As I said: It is common place to build railway lines around other live ones: You'll find with many metro and intercity projects around the world.

In the event that the Maynooth/Sligo line had to be closed, for the short-term or long-term, trains could terminate at Broombridge where people could switch to Luas and get close to the city centre than Connelly or Docklands station. The network effect at work!

lucernarian wrote: »

I've also seen nothing yet concerning either the canal and the impact on it, or what Waterways Ireland's response will be. Nor have you yet mentioned how the graveyards wouldn't be impacted upon. One part of the cemetery is literally surrounded by the Glasnevin Junction lines and the flyover and at most is 250 metres away from the main (and most historical) part of the cemetery and at a minimum it is only 100 metres away.

They managed large scale engineering works around working canals in the 1800s, I'm sure we'll come up with something.

lucernarian wrote: »

Here's something relevant from CrossRail: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/tunnelling/western-tunnels-royal-oak-to-farringdon/royal-oak-portal. Tunnel portal is only 21 metres wide, but a whopping 285 metres long.... and at Royal Oak, the tunnel entrance is aligned in parallel to the existing main line tracks out of Paddington. HR8 involves a tunnel alignment almost perpendicular to both the PPT line and the Sligo/Maynooth line.

Here's four sites, all larger and most far larger than those requirements, and all without lasting damage to the Sligo line or the canal or any demolition of houses or schools or graveyards:





Although there may be a more optimal and single-site portal site with a small bit of demolition of a few houses. It's not a good idea to rule that out at this point.

lucernarian wrote: »

It's disingenuous to leave out the possible impact on the cemetery sites in the immediate vicinity, unless you're referring to them as two of the green sites:eek:

All I said was: "nobody is suggesting digging up the graveyard".

What impacts are you talking about? The risk of tunnel collapse? There's always that risk.

V_Moth

Interesting scheme but never going to happen. The insistence of constructing low density housing estates around the city centre core means Dublin (and other Irish cities) is f*cked in terms of infrastructural expansion.

lucernarian

Some quick points: The yellow one is the only one that seemed viable to me at the time, and that's simply not in the scope of this thread. That entails using the HR9 option to begin with.

The blue patch: closes the PPT after DU is built. No big deal. Sheer reinforced walls would be needed right up to the edge of CIÉ land. To accommodate the PPT remaining in operation, the houses on the edge of Claremont Lawns would probably need to be levelled to allow for 3/4 tracks side by side before HR8 dives below the surface. It must be noted in the case of Royal Oak, the 22 metre worksite referred to is not on top of existing rail tracks that will be used in the future!! If most of Claremont Lawns, there would be ample space all the way to the Finglas Road, as well as easy site acces. Near enough 400 metres for the tracks to go underground. Then it's just a case of the cost of demolitions, relocation and of any court battles. And providing a new road access for the remainder of the Claremont Lawns housing (at the southeastern end). Basically it does seem to require demolition of houses or the closure of the PPT.


The orange block is over terrain that is on a gradient between the tracks and the canal if I remember correctly.. On the other side, a canal which is bound to require substantial work along the sides to ensure it's not breached. I've no idea how much that would cost but Waterways Ireland are presumably going to go to considerable lengths to ensure there's no impact on the canal or the (protected?) locks in the vicinity. The box is maybe 21 metres but there's a need to have a smidgin more space than that for safety barriers and so on. The Royal Oak link mentioned 22 metres, which doesn't look feasible there, short of closing one of the tracks.

The red block looks good though there's only barely enough space if the parameters from the Royal Oak construction are a good basis. It doesn't matter if there's plenty of width if there's only 300 metres of distance that fits a 22 metre wide cutting. A new flyover parallel and to the southwest of the existing flyover for the Maynooth line would be needed. Also the eventual route would be longer and involve a significant curve to make its way back to around the start of the Ballymun road. Nothing unsurmountable though or requiring legally problematic or particularly costly designs. That's if there is enough distance to allow for the tunnel portal.

Aard

V_Moth wrote: »

The insistence of constructing low density housing estates around the city centre core means Dublin (and other Irish cities) is f*cked in terms of infrastructural expansion.

Could you expand on that? Firstly, which "low density housing estates" are you referring to? And how do those developments prohibit expansion of transport infrastructure discussed in this thread?

strassenwo!f

I've a couple of questions.

The metro north route was identified as a key corridor linking Swords, the Airport and several suburbs with the city centre. Does this option transfer people directly between (i) Swords, the Airport and those several suburbs and (ii) the city centre (i.e. the most desirable location, in terms of transport demand, in the State)?

Is it a priority for transport in Ireland to facilitate direct links between Cork and a city which is outside the State (Belfast)? It might be great to have such a service, but nobody is going to use such a service everyday. A few times a year, at most.

Should Ireland, for the moment not just prioritise the things that would make a major difference to everyday lives, like building spurs in the West of Dublin to make better use of the proposed interconnector, which will be underutilised under the current plans?

And, for the moment, let passengers wishing to travel between Cork and Belfast just travel across the city by other means, as they do in cities like London and Paris.

lucernarian

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've a couple of questions.

The metro north route was identified as a key corridor linking Swords, the Airport and several suburbs with the city centre. Does this option transfer people directly between (i) Swords, the Airport and those several suburbs and (ii) the city centre (i.e. the most desirable location, in terms of transport demand, in the State)?

Is it a priority for transport in Ireland to facilitate direct links between Cork and a city which is outside the State (Belfast)? It might be great to have such a service, but nobody is going to use such a service everyday. A few times a year, at most.

Should Ireland, for the moment not just prioritise the things that would make a major difference to everyday lives, like building spurs in the West of Dublin to make better use of the proposed interconnector, which will be underutilised under the current plans?

And, for the moment, let passengers wishing to travel between Cork and Belfast just travel across the city by other means, as they do in cities like London and Paris.

Sounds more like an argument against the "+" part of HR8+. HR8 itself very much achieves the objective of linking Swords/Airport/Centre along with a handful of intermediate suburbs and on a line that can directly travel through the Interconnector, never mind add passengers to it.

With capacity on the northern commuter line already near its limit if the DART is expanded to Balbriggan, providing infrastructure that also substantially reduces the need for 3 tracks never mind quad tracking, would be a fairly prudent investment. That can be done for basically the cost of the HR8 proposal along with a variant of Iarnród Éireann's existing plan (HR1) or whatever AECOM proposal involved a line via the north of Malahide's estuary.

Pete_Cavan

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've a couple of questions.

The metro north route was identified as a key corridor linking Swords, the Airport and several suburbs with the city centre. Does this option transfer people directly between (i) Swords, the Airport and those several suburbs and (ii) the city centre (i.e. the most desirable location, in terms of transport demand, in the State)?

The HR8 tunnel pretty much mirrors the MN tunnel route from DCU north so Swords, the Airport and those suburbs are served. By using the existing rail line along the Royal Canal, the service then has its own dedicated route to the Docklands with no stops so there is huge capacity and fast services. It can then enter the DU tunnel (once built) to travel to SSG and even Heuston. It will connect with multiple other existing and planned services which creates more journey possibilities so not only serves existing transport demands, it creates additional demand. It would have the following interconnections;

1. Future Dart serves on the Maynooth line and Sligo/Longford and M3 parkway services, Luas BXD and potentially services using PPT at Glasnevin Junction
2. Future Dart Services on the Northern Line at Dockalnds
3. Both future Dart lines at Pearse
4. Luas Green line at SSG
5. Several commuter and intercity services at Heuston

Is it a priority for transport in Ireland to facilitate direct links between Cork and a city which is outside the State (Belfast)? It might be great to have such a service, but nobody is going to use such a service everyday. A few times a year, at most.

Not a priority, just a latent benefit that comes with this proposal.

Should Ireland, for the moment not just prioritise the things that would make a major difference to everyday lives, like building spurs in the West of Dublin to make better use of the proposed interconnector, which will be underutilised under the current plans?

Being able to run Swords/Airport services through the interconnector makes better use of it and maximises the return on investment for the tunnel. Spurs in west Dublin would be very expensive to build given an entirely new alignment would have to be created, feeder bus services would be more feasible.

People seem to be forgetting that a tunnel portal is an intrinsic part of the plan in several of the options being considered, not just this one. No one is saying it is a cheap solution, merely that it makes better use of the existing infrastructure and opens up more possible services given the multiple tracks converging on Glasnevin Junction. There is a lot of space at Glasnevin Junction and constructing a portal there will be a lot cheaper than some of the other proposals being thrown out elsewhere (triple/quad tracking the Northern Line, tunnelling from Broadstone with tunnel portal at SSG).

lucernarian

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

People seem to be forgetting that a tunnel portal is an intrinsic part of the plan in several of the options being considered, not just this one. No one is saying it is a cheap solution, merely that it makes better use of the existing infrastructure and opens up more possible services given the multiple tracks converging on Glasnevin Junction. There is a lot of space at Glasnevin Junction and constructing a portal there will be a lot cheaper than some of the other proposals being thrown out elsewhere (triple/quad tracking the Northern Line, tunnelling from Broadstone with tunnel portal at SSG).

In the case of tunnelling from Broadstone to Stephen's Green, there's no demolition of any private property involved - the portals would be sited on land that ultimately the State has a final say in. I've discussed my views above on the idea of there being much space - not at all a certainty for the HR8 option.

It would have been nice if AECOM elaborated more on the cost of the HR8 option rather than just assume some very high costs average costs for things like each km of tunnel or the cost of underground and underground heavy rail stations x number of stations. Did they use the values from the Interconnector specifically or did Irish Rail supply them with general figures? Building stations should cost much less in suburban Dublin, along the R108 corridor and its conspicuous lack of protected buildings :eek:

There is a real problem of utility involved with HR8 and there should be (and AECOM should have considered) the provision for a station around Glasnevin Junction that could allow for transfers with the Cabra Luas station.

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

Some quick points: The yellow one is the only one that seemed viable to me at the time, and that's simply not in the scope of this thread.

This is a discussion about HR8+, not HR8. It's all very much so within the scope of this thread.

lucernarian wrote: »

Nothing unsurmountable though or requiring legally problematic or particularly costly designs.

Sorry to be dismissive but in the context of a multi-billion euro project, none of the issues or potential issue you highlighted are even close to unsurmountable.

Design wise, the things you think of as problems were hardly problems in the 1800s and are in no way problems now. Building, for example, beside a canal or other waterway is not a project-stopping issue, nor is building around tracks.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Does this option transfer people directly between (i) Swords, the Airport and those several suburbs and

Yes, it does and it offers greater connectivity directly to more suburbs both in the west and in the east north of Dublin.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

(ii) the city centre (i.e. the most desirable location, in terms of transport demand, in the State)?

Yes, it does.

And no, we're not going to start about discussion about SSG vs College Green. You have more than one thread dedicated to that.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Is it a priority for transport in Ireland to facilitate direct links between Cork and a city which is outside the State (Belfast)? It might be great to have such a service, but nobody is going to use such a service everyday. A few times a year, at most.

Loads of people would use the route daily, weekly and monthly on local, regional and intercity services. It's a fallacy to suggest the end points (Cork to Belfast) are the only or are the main trips posable.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Should Ireland, for the moment not just prioritise the things that would make a major difference to everyday lives, like building spurs in the West of Dublin to make better use of the proposed interconnector, which will be underutilised under the current plans?

I think you'll find HR8+ would have a "major difference to everyday lives " of commuters from Balbriggan, Skrriers, Rush, Swords, Ballymun, Glasnevin, Phisboro, Drumcondra etc etc, etc.

A direct link to the airport and other areas served from West Dublin, and a one-transfer link for North West Dublin, is likely also to be of great service to residents and commuters going to those areas.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And, for the moment, let passengers wishing to travel between Cork and Belfast just travel across the city by other means, as they do in cities like London and Paris.

London is planning on more intercity to its main airport.

SNCF has direct TGV services to/from Charles de Gaulle airport and cities, including: Brussels, Aix-en-Provence, Angers, Avignon, Bordeaux, Grenoble, Le Mans, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Montpellier, Nantes, Nimes, Poitiers, Rennes, Toulouse, Tours, Valence!

lucernarian wrote: »

In the case of tunnelling from Broadstone to Stephen's Green, there's no demolition of any private property involved - the portals would be sited on land that ultimately the State has a final say in. I've discussed my views above on the idea of there being much space - not at all a certainty for the HR8 option.

Expect that (a) you were already given loads of options for posable HR8+ portals that do not use private land, and (b) in the case of the Luas tunnel likely that such a tunnel will be extended further south to meet the green line, where there would be a portal on posable private land.

CPOing, in any case, is an non-issue. It's normal for such large projects.

lucernarian wrote: »

There is a real problem of utility involved with HR8 and there should be (and AECOM should have considered) the provision for a station around Glasnevin Junction that could allow for transfers with the Cabra Luas station.

The report does suggest a station around there, but we can't have it every which way. Fitting in portals etc is more important than having a link with an exchange with BXD -- not every connection is always possible to make. Glasnevin to DU at Docklands, for example, would likely surface some distance away from BXD. If Darts were to be going towards the PPT then a Luas connection would be more posable.

lucernarian

Just want to point out that the yellow tunnelling option necessarily involves the HR9 proposal which AECOM (rightly) said was of less benefit than routing via the Maynooth/Sligo line. If it's to be called HR9+ then that's fine but its called HR8+ and its simply misleading to portray it as such. Three options is not a load of options, especially when only two seem to allow the required space without diverting a canal (would like to see the EIS for such a proposal!) and if the red plot is buildable, the residents alongside the blue plot could easily object in the courts and point out a nearby alternative site. Or else the Phoenix Park line is simply closed off as collateral damage.

So only one of the options appears to be buildable using Crossrail's info as a basis, on exclusively CIE-owned lands. But that's fine by me if there is indeed enough space and there only needs to be one viable option really.

I know that eggs must be cracked to make an omelette but we don't have any cost or time estimates for the specific tunnel options and this is needed to demonstrate why it should be selected over the other options in the Fungal/North Dublin consultation. Leading to an all-important CBA and whether it stands up to e.g LR7

Didn't the RPA pointed out Stephen's green as the location of a D2 tunnel entrance? That would mean the permanent loss of some part of Stephen's Green depending on how tracks could be shifted over to the remainder of Stephen's Green West. I'd hate to think where they'd site a (admittedly smaller than DART) tunnel portal in the vicinity of Harcourt or Clermont, or how much it would cost.

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

Didn't the RPA pointed out Stephen's green as the location of a D2 tunnel entrance? That would mean the permanent loss of some part of Stephen's Green depending on how tracks could be shifted over to the remainder of Stephen's Green West. I'd hate to think where they'd site a (admittedly smaller than DART) tunnel portal in the vicinity of Harcourt or Clermont, or how much it would cost.

No, or at least, I can't see where the RPA has ever even hinted at permanent loss of anything other than very small areas of Stephen's Green for the likes of vents etc.

And they have never publicly suggested a tunnel portal in the vicinity of Harcourt Street.

lucernarian wrote: »

Just want to point out that the yellow tunnelling option necessarily involves the HR9 proposal which AECOM (rightly) said was of less benefit than routing via the Maynooth/Sligo line. If it's to be called HR9+ then that's fine but its called HR8+ and its simply misleading to portray it as such.

• HR4 North Malahide Estuary to Airport via Swords West
• HR9 is Dart on Heuston to Swords via Phoenix Park Tunnel, under Glasnevin
• HR8 is Dart on Maynooth Line (Drumcondra) to Airport-Swords, under Glasnevin
• HR8+ is Dart Maynooth Line (lower Drumcondra line) to Airport-Swords, under Glasnevin + Dart continuing onto Ballbrigen etc, + Intercity to Dublin Airport and onto Belfast from Heuston via Phoenix Park Tunnel

HR8+ is a combination of different elements of HR8, HR9, and HR4, with the addition of Cork-Dublin-Belfast intercity services.

Why the name HR8+? Because the core idea started with HR8 and built on that idea. The primary element of HR8+ is the HR8-like Dart services, it just that HR8+ uses the less congested route and feeds into Dart Underground.

Is it possible that your confusion on this is similar to your confusion on the RPA suggesting a tunnel portal on city centre streets? The name HR8+ has been used here on C&T for months and it's not being changed for now... but maybe in hindsight I should have called it HR11!!??

lucernarian wrote: »

Three options is not a load of options, especially when only two seem to allow the required space without diverting a canal (would like to see the EIS for such a proposal!) and if the red plot is buildable, the residents alongside the blue plot could easily object in the courts and point out a nearby alternative site. Or else the Phoenix Park line is simply closed off as collateral damage.

So only one of the options appears to be buildable using Crossrail's info as a basis, on exclusively CIE-owned lands. But that's fine by me if there is indeed enough space and there only needs to be one viable option really.

Again: Sorry to be dismissive but in the context of a multi-billion euro project, none of the issues or potential issue you highlighted are even close to unsurmountable. Here's a quick look at them one-by-one:

Re the canal: It's a wide section. There's be no major diversion needed. There's a grass bank on the other side if that has to be used in the short term. The section of canal was completely renewed 2-3 with everything on the surface wiped away -- an EIS for temporary changes will unlikely to be an issue.

Re the Phoenix Park line: Where are you getting the idea that the Phoenix Park line would be is simply closed off? It would be used in HR8+ far more than it is now (it just may not continue to feed into the Drumcondra line).

Re possible legal changes: Such are the norm and they need a legal bases to be successful.

lucernarian wrote: »

I know that eggs must be cracked to make an omelette but we don't have any cost or time estimates for the specific tunnel options and this is needed to demonstrate why it should be selected over the other options in the Fungal/North Dublin consultation. Leading to an all-important CBA and whether it stands up to e.g LR7

You're mixing up two issues here:

1. "I know that eggs must be cracked to make an omelette" -- by coming up with all sorts of excuses why tunnel portals are not possible, you're not demonstrating a good grasp of the eggs and omelette concept.

2. "cost or time estimates for the specific tunnel options" -- that's up to the powers to be if they were willing to take HR8+ seriously. The benefits are overwhelming and far reaching -- in terms of local, regional, intercity and all-island connectivity, and also in terms of decongesting the busiest section of northern line, wiping out any need for an expansive a third track etc.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

No, or at least, I can't see where the RPA has ever even hinted at permanent loss of anything other than very small areas of Stephen's Green for the likes of vents etc.

If there is private land possibly involved with this hypothetical tunnel, *where* would it emerge if not in Stephen's Green? Are you suggesting somewhere much further out towards Rathmines like Broombridge? If it emerged at St. Stephen's Green, it would physically necessitate tracks emerging and joining the green line. I thought that was a given? Unless the entirety of Stephen's Green west, existing green line and all, is given over to the construction and subsequent presence of two rather large tunnels making their way underground just south of Grafton St? Please clarify.

And they have never publicly suggested a tunnel portal in the vicinity of Harcourt Street.

Nice straw man there. I said Harcourt and Clermont which as you know is the name of two *stations*. I guess it depends on how you look at the word "vicinity" but it's a bizarre interpretation to restrict it to a single street out of what I said.

• HR4 North Malahide Estuary to Airport via Swords West
• HR9 is Dart on Heuston to Swords via Phoenix Park Tunnel, under Glasnevin
• HR8 is Dart on Maynooth Line (Drumcondra) to Airport-Swords, under Glasnevin
• HR8+ is Dart Maynooth Line (lower Drumcondra line) to Airport-Swords, under Glasnevin + Dart continuing onto Ballbrigen etc, + Intercity to Dublin Airport and onto Belfast from Heuston via Phoenix Park Tunnel

HR8+ is a combination of different elements of HR8, HR9, and HR4, with the addition of Cork-Dublin-Belfast intercity services.

Why the name HR8+? Because the core idea started with HR8 and built on that idea. The primary element of HR8+ is the HR8-like Dart services, it just that HR8+ uses the less congested route and feeds into Dart Underground.

Is it possible that your confusion on this is similar to your confusion on the RPA suggesting a tunnel portal on city centre streets? The name HR8+ has been used here on C&T for months and it's not being changed for now... but maybe in hindsight I should have called it HR11!!??

How would any train movement be possible from the Sligo/Maynooth line to the Airport line were the yellow plot to be dug? If there are no trains able to run from Drumcondra or Broombridge to the Airport with that option, what does it have to do with HR8? AECOM said that HR9 had the same features as HR8 save for the use of the PPT instead of the Maynooth line. My point is not a major one in the scheme of things, only that it's incorrect to label the yellow plot as part of what HR8+ was outlined, by you in the past, unless you have a north-facing tunnel portal that will allow for a broad 210 or so degree turn to make its way to the start of the Ballymun Road. I guess that does mean it could work for HR8, albeit with however many km of tunnel added on.:) So I'll give you that, 4 options of which 2 seem straightforward for the tunnel portal *alone*. Again I refer to the unfortunate straw man you have regarding Harcourt St., (and I assume you mean my post was confused, not me personally...) but I merely asked for confirmation of where the RPA did suggest a future tunnel would emerge if it was linking the existing green line. I know you might think me mentioning the Harcourt/Clermont area was a red herring but I was just assuming a tunnel would emerge near the start of the grade-separated parts of the green line. I might have gotten the wrong idea but the comment about finding a portal near the Grand Canal is true in and of itself.

Again: Sorry to be dismissive but in the context of a multi-billion euro project, none of the issues or potential issue you highlighted are even close to unsurmountable. Here's a quick look at them one-by-one:

Re the canal: It's a wide section. There's be no major diversion needed. There's a grass bank on the other side if that has to be used in the short term. The section of canal was completely renewed 2-3 with everything on the surface wiped away -- an EIS for temporary changes will unlikely to be an issue.

This concerns the orange space: going by the figures from Crossrail (crucially 22 metres into 21 metres doesn't go), the inevitable margin of error that rulers on google maps would have and also simple site accessibility, the temporary impact would be significant along a small section of it and may or may not be irreversible depending on how much exact space there is. You don't have specific evidence above to say that there would be no permanent impact on the canal.

Re the Phoenix Park line: Where are you getting the idea that the Phoenix Park line would be is simply closed off? It would be used in HR8+ far more than it is now (it just may not continue to feed into the Drumcondra line).

This concerns the blue section on your provided map. My point is this crucial one. If no houses or graves are to be removed, eitherthe PPT is to be permanently closed as the mouth of the tunnel will lie directly on top of it, or the space simply isn't viable. If there is the possibility that the very start of the Phoenix Park tracks and where the points with the Maynooth line are could be remodelled to allow for the construction to begin a little closer to the city centre ("away from Claremont Lawns" if you will), then fair enough. I didn't think there was.

Re possible legal changes: Such are the norm and they need a legal bases to be successful.

True, but things like the GCOB and the Slane Bypass (in particular) showed the importance of ruling out alternatives with less impact first (like the red space which involves no obvious demolition of houses) before planning permission can be lawfully granted.

You're mixing up two issues here:

I see no evidence of this.

1. "I know that eggs must be cracked to make an omelette" -- by coming up with all sorts of excuses why tunnel portals are not possible, you're not demonstrating a good grasp of the eggs and omelette concept.

I don't think I need go into a thorough definition of English idioms on this forum but if you only quoting less than half of my sentence, I do wonder what you can possibly demonstrate with such a stunted quote. In any case, my point was that we don't have *any* idea of how much the different tunnel options would cost or how much disruption would arise as sadly AECOM didn't have the remit or didn't have the money/time/gumption/whatever to investigate further. Btw the price tag for HR8 and HR9 was equal, even though the sites involved for possible tunnel portals are quite different and with different needs and landowners involved in the planning process and EIS etc. There is insufficient evidence to say how many "eggs" if you will are going to be cracked for the different reasons I've outlined. I want to point out that I am a fan of the project - just not at a cost that is substantially greater to a "reoptimised metro north" with original length platforms and grade separation at Collins Ave and Santry Cross, i.e. circa €2.9 billion going by what the RPA told AECOM.

2. "cost or time estimates for the specific tunnel options" -- that's up to the powers to be if they were willing to take HR8+ seriously. The benefits are overwhelming and far reaching -- in terms of local, regional, intercity and all-island connectivity, and also in terms of decongesting the busiest section of northern line, wiping out any need for an expansive a third track etc.

Agreed. If the HR8+ option is costly or eventually rejected after years of court battles and delays however, then there's no point. North Dublinnd especially Fingal needs solutions urgently, and we do still have a high-spec project with planning permission right now.

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

If there is private land possibly involved with this hypothetical tunnel, *where* would it emerge if not in Stephen's Green? Are you suggesting somewhere much further out towards Rathmines like Broombridge? If it emerged at St. Stephen's Green, it would physically necessitate tracks emerging and joining the green line. I thought that was a given? Unless the entirety of Stephen's Green west, existing green line and all, is given over to the construction and subsequent presence of two rather large tunnels making their way underground just south of Grafton St? Please clarify.

A tunnel portal at St Stephen's Green is not planned, and was never suggested -- can you clarify where you seen such a suggestion?

lucernarian wrote: »

Nice straw man there. I said Harcourt and Clermont which as you know is the name of two *stations*. I guess it depends on how you look at the word "vicinity" but it's a bizarre interpretation to restrict it to a single street out of what I said.

Charlemont? If so: There's even less space around Charlemont. Is it not bizarre that you found loads of reasons FR8+ portal sites can't work in relatively open ground, and then you suggest a Luas tunnel portal in a very dense, and confined area?

lucernarian wrote: »

How would any train movement be possible from the Sligo/Maynooth line to the Airport line were the yellow plot to be dug? If there are no trains able to run from Drumcondra or Broombridge to the Airport with that option, what does it have to do with HR8?..............

Passengers on services from Sligo/Maynooth would switch.

The HR8+ name derives from HR8 for the reasons already outlined. I'm sorry, but I cannot explain any more than that.

lucernarian wrote: »

This concerns the orange space: going by the figures from Crossrail (crucially 22 metres into 21 metres doesn't go), the inevitable margin of error that rulers on google maps would have and also simple site accessibility, the temporary impact would be significant along a small section of it and may or may not be irreversible depending on how much exact space there is. You don't have specific evidence above to say that there would be no permanent impact on the canal.

This is yet another example of you getting caught up on minor details: The image I posted says ~21m and there's more than a few meters space to shift the current tracks meters north or the possible site... and what kind of possible permanent impact are you imagining now?

lucernarian wrote: »

This concerns the blue section on your provided map. My point is this crucial one. If no houses or graves are to be removed, eitherthe PPT is to be permanently closed as the mouth of the tunnel will lie directly on top of it, or the space simply isn't viable. If there is the possibility that the very start of the Phoenix Park tracks and where the points with the Maynooth line are could be remodelled to allow for the construction to begin a little closer to the city centre ("away from Claremont Lawns" if you will), then fair enough. I didn't think there was.

The PPT won't be closed, it forms a key part of the intercity section of HR8+ (or HR11 if you want to call it that).

lucernarian wrote: »

True, but things like the GCOB and the Slane Bypass (in particular) showed the importance of ruling out alternatives with less impact first (like the red space which involves no obvious demolition of houses) before planning permission can be lawfully granted.

The need to look at alternatives in those cases are due to impacts on protected sites.

lucernarian wrote: »

...North Dublin and especially Fingal needs solutions urgently, and we do still have a high-spec project with planning permission right now.

The problem with that idea is that Metro North is seen to have low benefits outside its direct area and it has very weak support outside of Fingal. It even has very mixed support among many people who general support public transport.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

A tunnel portal at St Stephen's Green is not planned, and was never suggested -- can you clarify where you seen such a suggestion?

You've answered your own question I think. And it's a particularly spurious question considering the straw man you made earlier. You could have saved us a whole lot of grief if you simply said what the RPA actually did propose. Actually let's save everyone another few lengthy reads. Took me a while there to find Infrastructure as the boards.ie index is all moved around for me but anyway... Members of the jury, I give you:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94067888&postcount=295. It mentions Stephen's Green as the southern end, albeit without the linking of tracks and therefore not leaving any lasting impact on Stephen's Green. I'm wondering where the the tunnel would emerge to join the green line in the future, which was exactly what I was doing earlier...

The HR8+ name derives from HR8 for the reasons already outlined. I'm sorry, but I cannot explain any more than that.

This isn't even a matter of opinion here - ascribing that space near where the PPT line meets Blackhorse Avenue to being useful for HR8, HR8+, HR8 + HR4 or whatever else it can be called is like saying triple-tracking Clontarf Road to Killester will help get DART underground built. HR8 and HR9 are two fundamentally different schemes with completely different city centre (If Heuston is even central Dublin) corridors and terminii. There's a reason (or a few) why HR9 wasn't forwarded to the govt. alongside HR8. Same cost but far greater city centre, modal transfer opportunities and overall utilisation of DART Underground... Building a line that serves the Phoenix Park Tunnel, via Airport to Malahide is of good use to the Heuston lines and the Northern commuter/Enterprise line and DART as far as what, Killester? Further south on the DART to Greystones, and obviously the entire Sligo/Maynooth line won't benefit one bit from a tunnel built to serve just the Phoenix Park line. Unless the HR8 tunnel takes a very very meandering loop around Dublin 7 and 9 as explained above.

This is yet another example of you getting caught up on minor details: The image I posted says ~21m and there's more than a few meters space to shift the current tracks meters north or the possible site... and what kind of possible permanent impact are you imagining now?

So how many of the cemetery plots will have to be dug up and reburied? And before anyone thinks I'm being a smartass I've discussed this with somebody who works there and he says there is a way to have this done legally although who knows what the relatives would say. I'd also like if you took the discussion I'm having seriously rather than chalk it down to imaginings.

The PPT won't be closed, it forms a key part of the intercity section of HR8+ (or HR11 if you want to call it that).

It will be closed *if* the blue patch is used - unless it's expanded and some of Claremont Lawns is taken out of it. Space for a TBM tunnel box with two tracks going beside it and onwards to the Phoenix Park just don't go into 25 odd metres width. I'm no lawyer but if there's another valid site in the area then the residents could block any kind of demolition of their homes owing to it being an unnecessary option. The other options would have to be ruled out first for good reasons or more severe environmental impact to the cemetery or the canal. As I've said, the red space you had marked looks probably okay on all those points.

The need to look at alternatives in those cases are due to impacts on protected sites.

True. Although St. Paul's cemetery isn't a protected site, it is still a massive cemetery.

The problem with that idea is that Metro North is seen to have low benefits outside its direct area and it has very weak support outside of Fingal. It even has very mixed support among many people who general support public transport.

This is of course compared to the virtually unknown level of support for HR8 and its variants. Though my point was initially worded for the "optimised" Metro North proposal. I had to drop it as the overground aspects along the Ballymun road, and a station plan for O'Connell St to a certain extent, will need some serious planning permission changes. Apart from those very specific changes, optimised Metro North is already factored into planning and zoning decisions and if the R108 section of those changes gets approval, the project as a whole should be easily rubberstamped.

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

You've answered your own question I think. And it's a particularly spurious question considering the straw man you made earlier. You could have saved us a whole lot of grief if you simply said what the RPA actually did propose. Actually let's save everyone another few lengthy reads. Took me a while there to find Infrastructure as the boards.ie index is all moved around for me but anyway... Members of the jury, I give you:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94067888&postcount=295. It mentions Stephen's Green as the southern end, albeit without the linking of tracks and therefore not leaving any lasting impact on Stephen's Green. I'm wondering where the the tunnel would emerge to join the green line in the future, which was exactly what I was doing earlier.

Just to be clear: I only asked that particularly spurious question because you went on about it after it was said there is no plan for a tunnel portal near SSG.

lucernarian wrote: »

This isn't even a matter of opinion here - ascribing that space near where the PPT line meets Blackhorse Avenue to being useful for HR8, HR8+, HR8 + HR4 or whatever else it can be called is like saying triple-tracking Clontarf Road to Killester will help get DART underground built. HR8 and HR9 are two fundamentally different schemes with completely different city centre (If Heuston is even central Dublin) corridors and terminii. There's a reason (or a few) why HR9 wasn't forwarded to the govt. alongside HR8. Same cost but far greater city centre, modal transfer opportunities and overall utilisation of DART Underground... Building a line that serves the Phoenix Park Tunnel, via Airport to Malahide is of good use to the Heuston lines and the Northern commuter/Enterprise line and DART as far as what, Killester? Further south on the DART to Greystones, and obviously the entire Sligo/Maynooth line won't benefit one bit from a tunnel built to serve just the Phoenix Park line. Unless the HR8 tunnel takes a very very meandering loop around Dublin 7 and 9 as explained above.

Have you looked at the HR8+ maps already posted?

What possible services do you think HR8+ includes?

lucernarian wrote: »

So how many of the cemetery plots will have to be dug up and reburied? And before anyone thinks I'm being a smartass I've discussed this with somebody who works there and he says there is a way to have this done legally although who knows what the relatives would say. I'd also like if you took the discussion I'm having seriously rather than chalk it down to imaginings.

How many of the cemetery plots will have to be dug up and reburied?

0. Zero. None. Not a single one. I'm nearly sure I've already said that there is space to shift the tracks?

lucernarian wrote: »

It will be closed *if* the blue patch is used - unless it's expanded and some of Claremont Lawns is taken out of it. Space for a TBM tunnel box with two tracks going beside it and onwards to the Phoenix Park just don't go into 25 odd metres width. I'm no lawyer but if there's another valid site in the area then the residents could block any kind of demolition of their homes owing to it being an unnecessary option.

If that box is used, the line won't be close. Just one end of it will realigned and repurposed, and it would then be used far more than it is now.

lucernarian wrote: »

The other options would have to be ruled out first for good reasons or more severe environmental impact to the cemetery or the canal.

What impacts on the canal or graveyard are you taking about?

lucernarian wrote: »

True. Although St. Paul's cemetery isn't a protected site, it is still a massive cemetery.

Which won't be infringed on.

lucernarian wrote: »

This is of course compared to the virtually unknown level of support for HR8 and its variants. Though my point was initially worded for the "optimised" Metro North proposal. I had to drop it as the overground aspects along the Ballymun road, and a station plan for O'Connell St to a certain extent, will need some serious planning permission changes. Apart from those very specific changes, optimised Metro North is already factored into planning and zoning decisions and if the R108 section of those changes gets approval, the project as a whole should be easily rubberstamped.

The optimised metro would have stronger opposition from residents who already had to fight to get the line underground along the Ballymun Road.

HR8+ is effectively Dart Underground Phase 2 with an Intercity element. It's supporters could include people who want:

-- anything but Metro North (who are not just anti-rail)
-- rail services to the airport (and not trams or long trams)
-- a Cork-Dublin--DUB-Belfast rail service; including any body or group that wants better connectivity for Cork, Dublin or Belfast and anywhere along the way, including connecting Intercity services
-- public transport connectivity between the costal towns and Swords, the airport, DCU etc
-- rail services from the Kildare route project section of the Kildare line to Glasnevin, Dublin Airport, Swords etc

So, basically: Far more potential for more people to be (a) actively supportive, (b) passively supportive, or (c) indifferent.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

Just to be clear: I only asked that particularly spurious question because you went on about it after it was said there is no plan for a tunnel portal near SSG.

But the RPA specifically show a plan on paper, kindly uploaded by jd, which would have a tunnel ending at St. Stephen's green. Now such a proposal doesn't have to allow for a seamless merging onto the existing green line, but how else did you forsee construction of the "luas underground" section without some kind of tunnel portal?! It was a speculative question to begin with, as I had explained. Even if that future station is built in tandem with DART underground, a future extension beyond that to join the green line seamlessly would need to be accounted for or else there will be more significant disruption on Stephen's Green. "It was said" nothing, I have already tried to explain that I wasn't making any red herring claims and yet it seems you had no basis for what "was said" to begin with.

How many of the cemetery plots will have to be dug up and reburied?

0. Zero. None. Not a single one. I'm nearly sure I've already said that there is space to shift the tracks?

Could you elaborate on that answer with evidence? Could you describe what lies immediately to the north of the train line lying at the edge of the red plot on the map you provided?

If that box is used, the line won't be close. Just one end of it will realigned and repurposed, and it would then be used far more than it is now.

If there is less than 25 metres available at a minumum, where a tunnel portal will lie, how will another two tracks be aligned around the mouth of the tunnel? Into what, St. Paul's cemetery or into Claremont Lawns?

So, basically: Far more potential for more people to be (a) actively supportive, (b) passively supportive, or (c) indifferent.

Completely agree with you there. With the caveat that there is no detailed engineering or cost information about such a plan and it's not going to gain widespread support with *any* price tag.

monument

Any chance of answering these two questions?...

Have you looked at the HR8+ maps already posted?

What possible services do you think HR8+ includes?

lucernarian wrote: »

But the RPA specifically show a plan on paper, kindly uploaded by jd, which would have a tunnel ending at St. Stephen's green. Now such a proposal doesn't have to allow for a seamless merging onto the existing green line, but how else did you forsee construction of the "luas underground" section without some kind of tunnel portal?! It was a speculative question to begin with, as I had explained. Even if that future station is built in tandem with DART underground, a future extension beyond that to join the green line seamlessly would need to be accounted for or else there will be more significant disruption on Stephen's Green. "It was said" nothing, I have already tried to explain that I wasn't making any red herring claims and yet it seems you had no basis for what "was said" to begin with.

It's unclear why you're continuing with this issue. You were wrong about a suggestion of a portal near SSG. It was pointed out neutrally that you wrong. You continued going on about it. Then it was asked where did you see such a suggestion and then claimed I was asking a "particularly spurious question".

If you want to discuss what the RPA are and are not planning on this issue please do start another thread -- this has little to nothing to do with HR8+.

lucernarian wrote: »

Could you elaborate on that answer with evidence ? Could you describe what lies immediately to the north of the train line lying at the edge of the red plot on the map you provided?

Evidence: Google Maps: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.366932,-6.2800735,110m/data=!3m1!1e3

IF the current tracks were shifted north to the green area alongside the tracks, the area between the current tracks and the canal path would then exceed the Cross Rail tunnel portal requirements.

lucernarian wrote: »

If there is less than 25 metres available at a minumum, where a tunnel portal will lie,

Within the blue area, there's no location less 25 meters. But it could be another four meters less before reaching the work site example from Crossrail which you quoted and linked to: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/tunnelling/western-tunnels-royal-oak-to-farringdon/royal-oak-portal

lucernarian wrote: »

...where a tunnel portal will lie, how will another two tracks be aligned around the mouth of the tunnel? Into what, St. Paul's cemetery or into Claremont Lawns?

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Nobody has said that any tracks would be aligned around the mouth of the tunnel. If the blue tunnel portal area is used, the PPT would only feed into the HR8+ tunnel to DCU.

lucernarian wrote: »

Completely agree with you there. With the caveat that there is no detailed engineering or cost information about such a plan and it's not going to gain widespread support with *any* price tag.

The report gives us some idea of costing; far firmer than Dart or Metro had before they built most of their support base. The idea that detailed engineering comes before support is misplaced -- a huge amount of projects now built would never got to detailed engineering without support first... detailed engineering without support would be a waste of taxpayer's money.

We also know that HR8+ also has less TBM tunnelling than Metro North, no new city centre stations (as it uses Dart Underground), reuses underutilised sections of railway close to the city centre, and saves a ton on CPOs and engineering on not needing to add a track or two to the northern line at some point in the future.

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

Here's something relevant from CrossRail: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/tunnelling/western-tunnels-royal-oak-to-farringdon/royal-oak-portal. Tunnel portal is only 21 metres wide, but a whopping 285 metres long.... and at Royal Oak, the tunnel entrance is aligned in parallel to the existing main line tracks out of Paddington. HR8 involves a tunnel alignment almost perpendicular to both the PPT line and the Sligo/Maynooth line.

monument wrote: »

Here's four sites, all larger and most far larger than those requirements, and all without lasting damage to the Sligo line or the canal or any demolition of houses or schools or graveyards:
...

lucernarian wrote: »

The box is maybe 21 metres but there's a need to have a smidgin more space than that for safety barriers and so on. The Royal Oak link mentioned 22 metres, which doesn't look feasible there, short of closing one of the tracks.

lucernarian wrote: »

This concerns the orange space: going by the figures from Crossrail (crucially 22 metres into 21 metres doesn't go),

Just be clear here: You originally said 21 meters and the Crossrail website also says 21 meters.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

Just be clear here: You originally said 21 meters and the Crossrail website also says 21 meters.

I refer to this: Originally Posted by lucernarian:
The box is maybe 21 metres but there's a need to have a smidgin more space than that for safety barriers and so on. The Royal Oak link mentioned 22 metres, which doesn't look feasible there, short of closing one of the tracks.

The work area required for the construction of Royal Oak was 22 metres and given that most options involve a railway line nearby, the safety barriers mentioned in the Crossrail link would also be required for that site at Glasnevin Junction. Perhaps I should have used 22 metres as the basis for what was needed.

Have you looked at the HR8+ maps already posted?

Yes. Unnecessary question to be honest.

What possible services do you think HR8+ includes?

I honestly can't answer (though of course intercity services would be enabled to the airport and seamless Cork-Dublin-Dublin Airport-Belfast services. My understanding was that the HR8+ aspects were all about adding HR4 to HR8 and the benefits thereof. Your closeup drawing of the central Dublin lines was drawn in response to Pete Cavan's post. It didn't confirm or deny what he thought. Especially, what happens to the red crayon line when it reaches Glasnevin Junction? Do you expect it to join the Maynooth line or the "HR8+" line?

It's unclear why you're continuing with this issue. You were wrong about a suggestion of a portal near SSG.

... but I was right, and gave evidence from the RPA themselves that they have exactly that in mind? I incorrectly assumed the RPA were planning on having a "Luas BXD" bypass with seamless connections on both ends but apart from that... Anyway the point was brought up with Pete Cavan as I think it's premature to say HR8+ (what, €3.2 billion? with a large margin) will compare favourably with LR3 (nearly €800 mill), the Luas D2 tunnel (maybe €1 billion or so), Clongriffin to Airport (€200 or so mill IIRC) and triple tracking some of the northern commuter line (cannot currently find cost).

Evidence: Google Maps: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.36693.../data=!3m1!1e3
IF the current tracks were shifted north to the green area alongside the tracks, the area between the current tracks and the canal path would then exceed the Cross Rail tunnel portal requirements.

The green area is an embankment IIRC. It seems to be about 4 metres wide at the crucial part.. Perhaps the westbound track could be shifted to the current eastbound one and a new track constructed which would run right against St. Paul's cemetery? The work area for moving a track northwards would add on to the space needed for the track and clearance between the new embankment and the existing track. I still think that can't be done in the space available without moving the perimeter plots but a detailed report would provide the answers.

Within the blue area, there's no location less 25 meters. But it could be another four meters less before reaching the work site example from Crossrail which you quoted and linked to: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construct...yal-oak-portal. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Nobody has said that any tracks would be aligned around the mouth of the tunnel. If the blue tunnel portal area is used, the PPT would only feed into the HR8+ tunnel to DCU.

The Royal Oak portal was built on unused land, whereas the blue site involves building on a currently-used track, which I understood from you would remain open for through traffic from the Maynooth/Sligo line to the PPT as before. Correct me if I'm wrong. If the PPT line is not to be severed by a tunnel portal on the blue site then: Either those tracks would have to be accommodated *alongside* the tunnel box, meaning 25 metres is hopelessly inadequate (and graves or houses are removed) or else you're thinking of an underground (perhaps triangular) junction involving both the yellow and blue sites for tunnelling.

The report gives us some idea of costing; far firmer than Dart or Metro had before they built most of their support base. The idea that detailed engineering comes before support is misplaced -- a huge amount of projects now built would never got to detailed engineering without support first... detailed engineering without support would be a waste of taxpayer's money.

"The idea" mentioned above is a straw man. CIÉ and RPA, like when Irish Rail got an updated business case for Clongriffin to Airport, written by AECOM no less and claiming an extra 9.4 million!! passengers per year (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/iarnrod-eireann-pushes-for-200m-airport-rail-link-166283.html#ixzz1WmKK58wN), tend to be the historical drivers of plans and proposals. We're not talking about detailed engineering, just an actual business plan or actual reasonably good ideas of costs for mooted projects. The interesting thing is that Irish Rail don't seem to have lobbied for a DART line from Glasnevin to the airport before. I would really like to see what Irish Rail's engineers have to say about it. I don't feel comfortable with overtly supporting a specific project that has got nothing except forum discussions to back it up, as much as I like the idea of it. I'm discounting the accuracy of the AECOM report's costings as I find its methodology is questionable. Did they simply borrow the cost of underground heavy rail stations from supplied Irish Rail figures for DART underground?

If HR8+ could be sold as a project in phases then that would substantially defuse the tension that could arise over its cost.

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

I refer to this: Originally Posted by lucernarian:
The box is maybe 21 metres but there's a need to have a smidgin more space than that for safety barriers and so on. The Royal Oak link mentioned 22 metres, which doesn't look feasible there, short of closing one of the tracks.

The work area required for the construction of Royal Oak was 22 metres and given that most options involve a railway line nearby, the safety barriers mentioned in the Crossrail link would also be required for that site at Glasnevin Junction. Perhaps I should have used 22 metres as the basis for what was needed.

I'm unsure of the importance of splitting hairs over 1 meter in a case where there's more than a few meters to work around by shifting current tracks, but this is what Crossrail says:

"The worksite, which is only 21 metres wide, had a protective barrier to protect our workers and machinery from the adjacent live railway, to protect the railway from the risk of plant falling onto it, and to help lessen any noise and light impact on local residents."

I can't find any source for your 22 meter claim. I don't know why you think the barriers could or would be outside the worksite.

lucernarian wrote: »

Yes. Unnecessary question to be honest.

I honestly can't answer (though of course intercity services would be enabled to the airport and seamless Cork-Dublin-Dublin Airport-Belfast services. My understanding was that the HR8+ aspects were all about adding HR4 to HR8 and the benefits thereof. Your closeup drawing of the central Dublin lines was drawn in response to Pete Cavan's post. It didn't confirm or deny what he thought. Especially, what happens to the red crayon line when it reaches Glasnevin Junction? Do you expect it to join the Maynooth line or the "HR8+" line?

If there's this much confusion, I might just re-start the thread with a more clearly outline of the suggested project. Thanks for the feedback on this and on the name (I'm going to refer to it as Dart Underground Phase 2 or something like that, rather than HR8+).

Re "Pete Cavan's post. It didn't confirm or deny what he thought": But my reply to his post starts by saying: "Exactly what I had in mind". Even if my map is not the clearest, that phrase should have made it clear that I was confirming what he thought.

lucernarian wrote: »

...which I understood from you would remain open for through traffic from the Maynooth/Sligo line to the PPT as before........

No, that's not the case. And I've said this already.

lucernarian wrote: »

CIÉ and RPA, like when Irish Rail got an updated business case for Clongriffin to Airport, written by AECOM no less and claiming an extra 9.4 million!! passengers per year (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...ixzz1WmKK58wN), tend to be the historical drivers of plans and proposals. We're not talking about detailed engineering, just an actual business plan or actual reasonably good ideas of costs for mooted projects. The interesting thing is that Irish Rail don't seem to have lobbied for a DART line from Glasnevin to the airport before. I would really like to see what Irish Rail's engineers have to say about it. I don't feel comfortable with overtly supporting a specific project that has got nothing except forum discussions to back it up, as much as I like the idea of it. I'm discounting the accuracy of the AECOM report's costings as I find its methodology is questionable. Did they simply borrow the cost of underground heavy rail stations from supplied Irish Rail figures for DART underground?

Luas was not originally suggested by Irish Rail or CIE, and clearly not by the RPA.

Business cases for both Metro North and Dart Underground were only released at planning stages and in redated form.

What exactly is wrong with the costings in Aecom's report?

lucernarian wrote: »

If HR8+ could be sold as a project in phases then that would substantially defuse the tension that could arise over its cost.

That's up to you. It is what it is at this stage. Nobody is making it out to be anything else.

lucernarian wrote: »

If HR8+ could be sold as a project in phases then that would substantially defuse the tension that could arise over its cost.

The north Swords to Northern Line section could be hived off, to before or after the core project, but if after you'd be risking intercity viability and a some regional and local connections.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

I'm unsure of the importance of splitting hairs over 1 meter in a case where there's more than a few meters to work around by shifting current tracks, but this is what Crossrail says:
"The worksite, which is only 21 metres wide, had a protective barrier to protect our workers and machinery from the adjacent live railway, to protect the railway from the risk of plant falling onto it, and to help lessen any noise and light impact on local residents."

I quickly looked to double-check what the exact distance was before using it in one post as I wasn't sure "21" was the distance from concrete wall to concrete wall. I thought I saw 22 written somewhere as I remember being convinced after reading the page. I've searched the page and there's no mention of the number so maybe I'm losing my marbles but in any case I take that back, and apologies!:o

If there's this much confusion, I might just re-start the thread with a more clearly outline of the suggested project. Thanks for the feedback on this and on the name (I'm going to refer to it as Dart Underground Phase 2 or something like that, rather than HR8+).

Re "Pete Cavan's post. It didn't confirm or deny what he thought": But my reply to his post starts by saying: "Exactly what I had in mind". Even if my map is not the clearest, that phrase should have made it clear that I was confirming what he thought.

I get ya, but I thought you were listing "exactly" what you had in mind, i.e. the services you had thought of. And I saw you had indeed marked the "Royal Canal" line that goes to the Docklands but it simply came to a stop at Glasnevin Junction. At least, I can't tell if you propose it to merge with the Maynooth line and then use the red space for tunnelling (assuming it's possible which I believe it isn't without significant disruption to the canal and obviously the current walkway/future cycleway) or... maybe you have some idea that isn't a 90 degree elbow bend drawn on a map to get the "Royal Canal" line connected to the Glasnevin-Airport scheme.

No, that's not the case. And I've said this already.

This was very unclear, considering...

The PPT won't be closed, it forms a key part of the intercity section of HR8+ (or HR11 if you want to call it that)

Now, my point all along is that if you build a tunnel portal *on top* of the Phoenix Park line, where the blue space is, it will be closed off. If it's to remain open, another tunnel portal (the yellow space) would also have to be used and then an underground junction constructed to allow the PPT to feed into the Glasnevin-Airport proposal. But the Royal Canal line is to apparently be used for the Glasnevin-Airport proposal. So can Glasnevin Junction be remodelled, and can the gradient of the Royal Canal line be changed to allow it to cross the Maynooth Line to reach the tunnel portal? Alternatively, if the Red and Yellow sites are used and the Red site does have enough space, the Royal Canal line would simply avoid the Maynooth line and could continue along the canal into a portal. It rules out the chance of the original HR8 service proposal with Drumcondra station bypassed from the rail link to the airport and to be honest I don't like the idea of Connolly services being required to use a train line via the far end of Malahide Estuary to access the airport as among other things it would mean the Enterprise would have to go there and reverse direction back along the "HR4" bit to continue on its journey. And Drumcondra is one of the most densely-populated suburbs with lots of trip-generators nearby. I know the Royal Canal line is quieter but surely improved signalling's the answer, not an inferior rail routing?

Luas was not originally suggested by Irish Rail or CIE, and clearly not by the RPA.

Business cases for both Metro North and Dart Underground were only released at planning stages and in redated form.

What exactly is wrong with the costings in Aecom's report?

Released, but if Irish Rail can be an example, they would have been created long before planning. I mean, Govt. has to have some idea of whether a proposal will make money before they go looking for planning permission?! I don't know how to answer your question as I'm not a highly-paid transport engineer and if I could, I'd be paid by the govt. to answer it. I alluded and mentioned things I had concerns with already, like my question about the costs attributed to different types of stations (light vs heavy, underground vs overground etc). AECOM substantially used figures supplied by the agencies for the other studied options but crucially, it seems like Irish Rail had no existing costings for the HR8 scheme. So where did they get their numbers and costs from? This reaches to the very credibility of the HR8 proposal's price tag.

That's up to you. It is what it is at this stage. Nobody is making it out to be anything else.

How is it up to me whether a phased project will generate more or less tension? I'm referring to public opposition when I wrote tension. Anyway Govt and the media should be ashamed of themselves. A beneficial project could be sold as costing €120 million every year, for the next 30 years (like the way many toll roads are to have 30-year concessions and accounting for interest etc.) or it can be a "3.2 billion" megaproject while patients are sick and dying in hospitals.

The point is, this gives the C1 and LR3 people movers from Kielys options a better chance of success just because the Govt can tease themselves and their voters into thinking "oh, we can still build a tunnel from Broadstone to Stephen's Green... eventually... after what, 50 or 60 years since related ideas were first mooted. And the Luas operators aren't having strike action next month either :rolleyes:

strassenwo!f

Monument, i certainly don't wish to diss this idea, but I don't currently have time to look at it in detail.

The one thing that strikes me from your comments above is that, effectively, "this all hangs on the interconnector".

There is a proposal that intercity trains will go through the interconnector, to allow direct services between Cork/Galway/Limerick etc and Belfast, in order to fill up the excess capacity in the interconnector. This proposal does, unfortunately, involve electrifying all the intercity lines at considerable expense.

(I don't think this is a very good idea, as I feel that this tunnel should be used exclusively for commuter trains. Passengers from Cork, for example, can travel across the city by LUAS to Connolly, as they currently do in Dublin, and as they continue to do in many cities).

But we do need to be clear about your proposal. If the intercity trains are taking your route, then they're not going via the interconnector. Thus, the interconnector is going to be running at considerably below c.apacity.

On the other hand, if the intercity trains are going via the interconnector, then there's not a whole of point building your route for those intercity trains, with all the extra expense.

This statement that "The whole thing hangs on the interconnector".

Could you talk us through that?

end of the road

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There is a proposal that intercity trains will go through the interconnector, to allow direct services between Cork/Galway/Limerick etc and Belfast, in order to fill up the excess capacity in the interconnector. This proposal does, unfortunately, involve electrifying all the intercity lines at considerable expense.

(I don't think this is a very good idea, as I feel that this tunnel should be used exclusively for commuter trains. Passengers from Cork, for example, can travel across the city by LUAS to Connolly, as they currently do in Dublin, and as they continue to do in many cities).

they could but why would they bother if they have to drag their bags off a train onto a luas and then another train when they can get the bus or drive? more people may be willing to use the trains to the airport if they run direct. also, it takes trains out of connolly and heuston potentially meaning more capacity within those stations. diesel trains running through the inter connector shouldn't be a problem once the correct ventilation is installed. electrifying the lines to cork/limerick/galway/belfast is a goal that needs considering and the eventual go ahead but i can't see that happening until the stock running those lines nears retirement.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Monument, i certainly don't wish to diss this idea, but I don't currently have time to look at it in detail.

The one thing that strikes me from your comments above is that, effectively, "this all hangs on the interconnector".

There is a proposal that intercity trains will go through the interconnector, to allow direct services between Cork/Galway/Limerick etc and Belfast, in order to fill up the excess capacity in the interconnector. This proposal does, unfortunately, involve electrifying all the intercity lines at considerable expense.

(I don't think this is a very good idea, as I feel that this tunnel should be used exclusively for commuter trains. Passengers from Cork, for example, can travel across the city by LUAS to Connolly, as they currently do in Dublin, and as they continue to do in many cities).

But we do need to be clear about your proposal. If the intercity trains are taking your route, then they're not going via the interconnector. Thus, the interconnector is going to be running at considerably below c.apacity.

On the other hand, if the intercity trains are going via the interconnector, then there's not a whole of point building your route for those intercity trains, with all the extra expense.

This statement that "The whole thing hangs on the interconnector".

Could you talk us through that?

Re "this all hangs on the interconnector" -- basically, the core HR8+ services would run via HR8+ and the planned Dart Underground tunnel.

Modern non-electric trains can run or can be made to run in tunnels, even with stations -- Irish Rail said as much at the Dart Underground hearing, and you can't take the issue up with them if you want.

HR8+ would include moving all Belfast services away from Connolly.