nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

New propoganda here but it really whets the appetite.....who knows if we'll have the nerve to do it though....

Find more posts tagged with

dublin

train

track

underground

rail

tunnel

interconnector

dart

suburban rail

transport 21

emu

electrification

ride me sideways

Quick Links

Comments

D.L.R.

Fitting they chose Halloween to do an article on a ghost train.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we talk about the Dart Underground and not about its demise.

D.L.R.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: Can we talk about the Dart Underground and not about its demise.

Is this a riddle?

Sam Russell

Mod: This thread is about the Dart Underground. It is not a thread about saying it will never be built. That line of discussion is unproductive.

Back seat modding is not appreciated. PM if you do not understand the instruction. Smart posts are also not appreciated.

D.L.R.

In all seriousness, this article tells us nothing we didn't find out in September 2015.

- Shortening the overall tunnel length by removing the section between Inchicore and Heuston. Instead, additional running lines would be built above ground. This could involve the removal of a station at Inchicore.

- Building the tunnel but terminating it at Pearse Station where it would connect with the existing Dart system. This would reduce capacity.

- Build the connecting lines, but passengers would be required to change trains at Heuston to connect with the Kildare line and Hazelhatch.

The first two I can understand in theory, but the third one seems to suggest building DU all the way to Heuston, but stopping there.. even though Ireland's only four track railway is waiting down the road? That's so stupid its bordering on irresponsible.

When will the state realise this money isn't a cost but an investment? Not building it is just bad business.

munchkin_utd

D.L.R. wrote: »

In all seriousness, this article tells us nothing we didn't find out in September 2015.

+1

it seems to be no more than a re-hash of what was already announced previously.

Minister Ross came out earlier in the month with a confirmation that it wasnt shelved but postponed, which wasnt my understanding of it, but anyhow.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/metro-north-dart-underground-will-go-ahead-says-ross-1.2817250

Metro North, Dart Underground will go ahead, says Ross
Minister for Transport says projects are part of ‘long-term vision’, have not been ‘shelved’

Expensive transport projects such as Dart Underground and Metro North have “not been shelved” but were “postponed” during the financial crisis, Minister for Transport Shane Ross has said.
Mr Ross said these and other major capital, transport projects “are all going ahead”.
Outlining his department’s “long-term vision”, Mr Ross said in the short term the State would spend €595 million on transport this year.
In the long term the priorities for Government were projects such as Dart Underground and Metro North – “all those projects which have not been shelved but which have been postponed because of the economic crisis”.

dublinman1990

D.L.R. wrote: »

In all seriousness, this article tells us nothing we didn't find out in September 2015.

- Shortening the overall tunnel length by removing the section between Inchicore and Heuston. Instead, additional running lines would be built above ground. This could involve the removal of a station at Inchicore.

- Building the tunnel but terminating it at Pearse Station where it would connect with the existing Dart system. This would reduce capacity.

- Build the connecting lines, but passengers would be required to change trains at Heuston to connect with the Kildare line and Hazelhatch.

The first two I can understand in theory, but the third one seems to suggest building DU all the way to Heuston, but stopping there.. even though Ireland's only four track railway is waiting down the road? That's so stupid its bordering on irresponsible.

When will the state realise this money isn't a cost but an investment? Not building it is just bad business.

Good grief; that sentence highlighted above is appalling rubbish. That wording totally defeat's the purpose of having DART Underground built in the first place.

For now that article is just a rehash of what was written from previous articles with no new information being provided by the State at that time.

All we seemingly have to do here is either wait for updates to arrive on the project from the government or the NTA or start a rigourous campaign to them get the thing built straight away.

LeinsterDub

Deedsie wrote: »

It seems the NTA have stopped releasing information to the public on projects until they have a relatively complete proposal. Merrion Gates proposal wasn't expected and bang it was just published out of the blue. Makes sense really.

People can't be completely unreasonable when it comes to these projects. We did go through a massive recession, all such projects were halted and only now they are coming back online.

Hopefully they are working away behind the scenes on a solid proposal for DART Expansion and DART Underground.

We already have a solid proposal for these projects. Costed and expected to deliver a cost benefit of 2:1, create thousands of jobs and basically funded by the EU investment bank. But yeah sure a other report will help!

BonnieSituation

Wasn't the original original original proposal to terminate the tunnel at Heuston but a (sensible decisions was made to lengthen it to Inchicore to minimise disruption and to take advantage of:

1. The substantial CIÉ land bank at the Inchicore Works to enable a tunnel portal and dig as well as to constrain CPO costs

and

2. The creation of a new station on the line for the people of Lower Ballyfermot and Inchicore thus ensuring greater loadings and easing congestion at Heuston.

It is madness that any proposal outside of the original one is being considered and nothing less than the original should be built.

Idbatterim

It is madness that any proposal outside of the original one is being considered and nothing less than the original should be built.

this appears to be the case to me too. Its going to be impossible to tell ultimately, until we see the new proposal, the compromises or alternatives come up with and the "savings" or worse value for money, depending on which side of the fence you are on...

I read the christmas bonus costs us 350,000,000 each year, funny how a government can pull money like that out of their ass every year, but couldnt find the relative pittance to get DU works started... Tells you all you need to know about this country , its governance and its priorities...

Zebra3

Idbatterim wrote: »

this appears to be the case to me too. Its going to be impossible to tell ultimately, until we see the new proposal, the compromises or alternatives come up with and the "savings" or worse value for money, depending on which side of the fence you are on...

I read the christmas bonus costs us 350,000,000 each year, funny how a government can pull money like that out of their ass every year, but couldnt find the relative pittance to get DU works started... Tells you all you need to know about this country , its governance and its priorities...

Tells you a lot about the electorate too.

[Deleted User]

You can forget about any significant infrastructure spending in the years ahead. The protected public sector are about to suck the country dry. Any budget surpluses should of been used for infrastructure as it was not guaranteed income, mainly lump sum corporation tax. Just as we would not consider a small scratch card win as yearly income.

Its a pity because the savings in the next few years would of paid for the DU Metro, M20, Atlantic corridor. Instead we will ensure we have the 2nd highest paid teachers in the world, but a third world infrastructure for everybody.

Were heading for a contraction just when the government are giving into every public sector whim

1. Retail Sales
...remained down on the recent high point of last May. This amounts to the weakest period in retail activity since the recovery began...

2. Industrial production
...aggregate production peaked in the middle of last year before falling sharply. Over the course of this year, output in the “traditional sector” recovered somewhat, but in the third quarter it remained 3pc lower than at the same time last year...

3. Tax revenues
... revenues were 4pc lower in October than in the same month in 2015.
That was the third consecutive month of weakness. In August there was a 13pc year-on-year fall, while in September revenues grew by a weak 2pc. This represents quite a sharp slowdown on earlier in the year...

4. Vehicle sales
New car registrations down by 12.5pc in October compared with the same month in 2015.
Light commercial registration down 2pc in October.
Bigger truck sales down 16pc in October.

The job market
is keeping strong, however:
...the labour market almost always lags behind economic activity. In the jargon of economists, it is a "backward-looking" or "lagging" indicator....

Tourism
still keeps strong too, however:
...the 2007/08 sterling plunge contributed to a one third decline in British visitor numbers which still has not been fully reversed... that the impact of the fall in sterling has yet to be felt in the tourism sector...

Currency
...currency effects will slow an economy that is already losing momentum...

LeinsterDub

Deleted User wrote: »

You can forget about any significant infrastructure spending in the years ahead. The protected public sector are about to suck the country dry. Any budget surpluses should of been used for infrastructure as it was not guaranteed income, mainly lump sum corporation tax. Just as we would not consider a small scratch card win as yearly income.

Its a pity because the savings in the next few years would of paid for the DU Metro, M20, Atlantic corridor. Instead we will ensure we have the 2nd highest paid teachers in the world, but a third world infrastructure for everybody.

Were heading for a contraction just when the government are giving into every public sector whim

1. Retail Sales
...remained down on the recent high point of last May. This amounts to the weakest period in retail activity since the recovery began...

2. Industrial production
...aggregate production peaked in the middle of last year before falling sharply. Over the course of this year, output in the “traditional sector” recovered somewhat, but in the third quarter it remained 3pc lower than at the same time last year...

3. Tax revenues
... revenues were 4pc lower in October than in the same month in 2015.
That was the third consecutive month of weakness. In August there was a 13pc year-on-year fall, while in September revenues grew by a weak 2pc. This represents quite a sharp slowdown on earlier in the year...

4. Vehicle sales
New car registrations down by 12.5pc in October compared with the same month in 2015.
Light commercial registration down 2pc in October.
Bigger truck sales down 16pc in October.

The job market
is keeping strong, however:
...the labour market almost always lags behind economic activity. In the jargon of economists, it is a "backward-looking" or "lagging" indicator....

Tourism
still keeps strong too, however:
...the 2007/08 sterling plunge contributed to a one third decline in British visitor numbers which still has not been fully reversed... that the impact of the fall in sterling has yet to be felt in the tourism sector...

Currency
...currency effects will slow an economy that is already losing momentum...

+ Trump now

murphaph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

+ Trump now

Yeah and to be honest we don't need Trump to hamstring our economy, we can do it fine by ourselves. Effing public sector unions and our cowardly self serving politicians who just want to clock up enough years for a decent pension.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah and to be honest we don't need Trump to hamstring our economy, we can do it fine by ourselves. Effing public sector unions and our cowardly self serving politicians who just want to clock up enough years for a decent pension.

Remember politicians are also paid out of the public purse and have made sure they are at the front of the queue when restoration of pay is considered. They also have extremely generous pensions and very very generous expenses, many of which are unvouched and unregulated.

strassenwo!f

As regular readers will know, I'm very much in favour of this DART Underground project in Dublin, but I am also in favour of some tweaks and in particular I would like to see an examination of the possibility of this project being built under part of TCD.

TCD makes and has made an enormous contribution to the city, in most ways by doing what it does, but also partly by being where it is. It is an integral part of the Dublin we know.

But, by its sheer size and history, it represents a big block in the centre of the city which nobody really wants to confront.

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

That enormous city-centre campus might yet though be able to make a major contribution to Dubin's transport. There are no obvious reasons why an East-West line couldn't be built through TCD, without impacting seriously on the libraries or the other most important structures in the place.

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

That enormous city-centre campus might yet though be able to make a major contribution to Dubin's transport. There are no obvious reasons why an East-West line couldn't be built through TCD, without impacting seriously on the libraries or the other most important structures in the place.

But would a North-South Line and and East-West line not both pass the same parts of College, or at least the the Front Square Area.

Also assuming your "East-West" line comes from Hueston, where does it go, it curve to go to Howth would be a near right angle, and if you wanted to go to Bray, it could not come above ground before the canal, so you are talking near Lansdowne Road.

There would also be a much better East-West Route, follow the course of the river.

strassenwo!f

GerardKeating wrote: »

But would a North-South Line and and East-West line not both pass the same parts of College, or at least the the Front Square Area.

Front Square itself - given that it is a very large open area in the centre of the city which could easily be restored to its current grandeur - might indeed be quite a suitable location for insertion of a tunnel boring machine, for example.

If Dublin were to build an underground line linking Heuston with the East of the city, as has been proposed for many years, it would probably run between Christchurch and Pearse (hopefully with a station in or around TCD's western side), it would go nowhere near the important (and, in several cases, very deep) libraries. More likely under the much less important buildings fronting College Street and Pearse Street. Catering, administration, and so forth.

A meaningful north-south undeground line, i.e. one which hits the busiest parts of the city, would have to go under or through one or more of TCD's most precious buildings. Not so with a West-East line.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Also assuming your "East-West" line comes from Hueston, where does it go, it curve to go to Howth would be a near right angle, and if you wanted to go to Bray, it could not come above ground before the canal, so you are talking near Lansdowne Road.

I would think this 'East-West' line would go between Heuston and Spencer Dock, with stations at Christchurch, 'TCD-West' (as mentioned above) and Pearse. So, very much like the recent proposal which took up much of this thread, but without the big diversion to St. Stephen's Green, and building the Pearse section parallel to that station, rather than perpendicular.

With regard to angles, a link between Spencer Dock and a 'parallel' station at Pearse would be certainly quite big, but no more than what was proposed in the recent plan for St. Stephen's Green - Pearse, or what is done by in or around 50 trains an hour in Frankfurt, between Konstablerwache and Ostendstrasse.

Such an arrangement might indeed eventually be extended to accomodate the southside DART line, but that would be many years down the line as Dublin has other transport priorities at the moment. It is certainly easy to envisage an arrangement where both the northside and southside DART line lines feed - at least to some extent - into a direct line under the city to Heuston, with the junction of these lines being underground at Pearse Station. This could be very beneficial for the city.

It is nigh impossible to see that ever happening if a 'perpendicular' underground station were to be built at Pearse, as was proposed in the recent plan.

GerardKeating wrote: »

There would also be a much better East-West Route, follow the course of the river.

The river might certainly be an option, but the angles might be impossibly tight, for example to create a good link at the proposed station at Spencer Dock.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

What are you talking about? Other cities with a lot more history than Dublin manage to tunnel under buildings without issue. Crossrail went thought the eye of a needle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail#Eye_of_the_Needle

strassenwo!f

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What are you talking about? Other cities with a lot more history than Dublin manage to tunnel under buildings without issue. Crossrail went thought the eye of a needle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail#Eye_of_the_Needle

Yes, of course you're entirely right. And, for example, Rome is currently building a metro line under the Coliseum, and building an interchange there. It is, I suppose, understandable, that the authorities in Dublin - with no experience yet of building underground in the city - are cautious about what might be involved.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, of course you're entirely right. And, for example, Rome is currently building a metro line under the Coliseum, and building an interchange there. It is, I suppose, understandable, that the authorities in Dublin - with no experience yet of building underground in the city - are cautious about what might be involved.

It's not understandable. If that's their attitude it's moronic

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

As regular readers will know, I'm very much in favour of this DART Underground project in Dublin, but I am also in favour of some tweaks and in particular I would like to see an examination of the possibility of this project being built under part of TCD.

TCD makes and has made an enormous contribution to the city, in most ways by doing what it does, but also partly by being where it is. It is an integral part of the Dublin we know.

But, by its sheer size and history, it represents a big block in the centre of the city which nobody really wants to confront.

I can readily see why TCD were not keen to have the metro built under their land. It was pretty clear to everyone that any meaningful metro route under their lands would have had to go under, or through, very deep buildings or very precious buildings. A north-south underground line was doomed from day one.

That enormous city-centre campus might yet though be able to make a major contribution to Dubin's transport. There are no obvious reasons why an East-West line couldn't be built through TCD, without impacting seriously on the libraries or the other most important structures in the place.

Mod: @ Strassanwolf: Any chance you could forget your hobby horse of having the Dart Underground rerouted though Trinity Front Arch. The plan that was approved routed it through Pearse and SSG and onto Cristchurch, and that is likely to be the route if it is ever built. You have been on about this for ever. Please give it a rest as it does not further discussion of Dart Underground on this thread.

Sam

strassenwo!f

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: @ Strassanwolf: Any chance you could forget your hobby horse of having the Dart Underground rerouted though Trinity Front Arch. The plan that was approved routed it through Pearse and SSG and onto Cristchurch, and that is likely to be the route if it is ever built. You have been on about this for ever. Please give it a rest as it does not further discussion of Dart Underground on this thread.

Sam

Sam, that plan was given approval, and then it was allowed to be dropped. You are saying that that is likely to be the route for this underground line, if it is ever built, but do you have any corroboration for that? Have you any official statement which backs up what you are saying?

There are options for a cross-city underground railway line: The original one was for a line with a major interchange in Temple Bar, which was dropped for a number of reasons (but which made sense then and actually now might make even more sense, in my opinion, as Temple Bar descends into a deeper unmanageable mire); and then there was the recent St. Stephen's Green plan, several hundred metres to the south of the earlier proposal, which was allowed to be dropped; and there is a suggestion that it should be built via College Green (I support a serious look at this, as the LUAS is being built through there and the City Council is looking at pedestrianising the area)

And other (perhaps better) possibilities will probably emerge before the line is built.

Given that the earlier plan for a Temple Bar route was dropped, and the plan for a detour via St. Stephen's Green was also dropped, why are you so against even discussing other possibilities for the city?

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sam, that plan was given approval, and then it was allowed to be dropped. You are saying that that is likely to be the route for this underground line, if it is ever built, but do you have any corroboration for that? Have you any official statement which backs up what you are saying?

There are options for a cross-city underground railway line: The original one was for a line with a major interchange in Temple Bar, which was dropped for a number of reasons (but which made sense then and actually now might make even more sense, in my opinion, as Temple Bar descends into a deeper unmanageable mire); and then there was the recent St. Stephen's Green plan, several hundred metres to the south of the earlier proposal, which was allowed to be dropped; and there is a suggestion that it should be built via College Green (I support a serious look at this, as the LUAS is being built through there and the City Council is looking at pedestrianising the area)

And other (perhaps better) possibilities will probably emerge before the line is built.

Given that the earlier plan for a Temple Bar route was dropped, and the plan for a detour via St. Stephen's Green was also dropped, why are you so against even discussing other possibilities for the city?

Mod: if you wish to discuss Mod decisions, the use a PM and do not do it on thread. Take a warning.

Sam

strassenwo!f

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: if you wish to discuss Mod decisions, the use a PM and do not do it on thread. Take a warning.

Sam

Sam, am I replying to you as a poster, or as a moderator?

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sam, am I replying to you as a poster, or as a moderator?

Mod: If it is Bold it is a Mod.

Banned for 3 days.

Sam.

Grandeeod

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: If it is Bold it is a Mod.

Banned for 3 days.

Sam.

For what its worth I think you have overstepped your own mark on this one. While Stressenwolfs posts were annoying for a long time, at this stage, he or she may feel correct. DU is actually about to undergo a complete "redesign". As much as it pains me to accept this, we are at a point where opinions on the project can include anything, as Government Policy has decided it will be different and that can also involve the route.

Up to you mod, but be realistic.

Sam Russell

Grandeeod wrote: »

For what its worth I think you have overstepped your own mark on this one. While Stressenwolfs posts were annoying for a long time, at this stage, he or she may feel correct. DU is actually about to undergo a complete "redesign". As much as it pains me to accept this, we are at a point where opinions on the project can include anything, as Government Policy has decided it will be different and that can also involve the route.

Up to you mod, but be realistic.

Mod: Strassenwolf was not banned for his opinion, he was banned for backseat modding. @Grandeeod - take a warning for the same reason. Use a PM instead.

Sam.

Logue no2

There's a good case to be made to rethink the routing through the city centre and taking the line under trinity would give a direct route to Pearse. However the proposed turnback at Pearse instead of over to Spencer Dock and then into the Great Northern line would be pointless and a false economy.

I believe Spencer Dock should be redeveloped to become a common bus and rail terminus for Dublin. Terminating InterCity trains at Heuston is too far out from the city centre. Obviously capital funding for all this is an issue but my view is we should do this all in the right way. Planning via stop gaps is planning to fail and to waste money in the long run.

loyatemu

Logue no2 wrote: »

There's a good case to be made to rethink the routing through the city centre and taking the line under trinity would give a direct route to Pearse. However the proposed turnback at Pearse instead of over to Spencer Dock and then into the Great Northern line would be pointless and a false economy.

I believe Spencer Dock should be redeveloped to become a common bus and rail terminus for Dublin. Terminating InterCity trains at Heuston is too far out from the city centre. Obviously capital funding for all this is an issue but my view is we should do this all in the right way. Planning via stop gaps is planning to fail and to waste money in the long run.

there's only 2 lines through the Phoenix Park tunnel and up through Cabra (and they have a low speed restriction on them). There wouldn't be sufficient capacity to route all the Heuston side trains to Spencer Dock. There's also no way to get Wexford trains to there (though I'm sure IÉ's solution to that would be to close the line south of Greystones).