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

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.