Pete_Cavan wrote: » Better cancel Metrolink so!
Last Stop wrote: » Let me clarify my point AGAIN. It would incredibly foolish and short sighted for Irish Rail to build shorter station boxes which could only handle 4 car DARTs as was suggested when there are several other ways to reduce the price of DU. Whether or not they choose to run intercity trains through the tunnel is frankly irrelevant but why would they restrict themselves from having that option in the future? Personally, I see no reason why they wouldn’t run an hourly Cork-Belfast train though the tunnel along with 5 minute DARTs. This would still be well below the capacity of the tunnel. With quad tracking either side, it would work just fine.
bk wrote: » It would be crazy to spend hundreds of millions more to satisfy some fantasy of running trains to the airport, when there is very little chance of it ever being used as such and no demand from the public for it to happen. I don't know why some people are so enamoured with trying to mix different services on the same line, increasing cost and complexity and ending up with an inferior system. No other European country does this. London doesn't try and run intercity trains through London Underground, instead it gets it's own tunnel, thus Crossrail. Paris the same with RER. Berlin, has 3 separate sets of tracks, one for each of S-Bahn (DART), commuter and intercity. Hell we have even seen the success of keeping it simple with Luas here. Each Luas line individually carries more passengers then the DART, despite having much smaller trams and street running, thanks to the simplicity of the system and high frequency. I really hope we don't go repeating the mistakes of DART with Dart Underground. DU needs to be a high quality mass transit system. Simple and high frequency.
Last Stop wrote: » You’re either trolling or completely contradicting yourself. :rolleyes:
Pete_Cavan wrote: » You raised CPOing 70 apartments as if it is something that prevents a DU station at Tara Street. I was pointing out to you that those apartments are being CPOed as part of Metrolink and will be demolished under that project, long before DU. I can only assume that you are trolling at this point.
Last Stop wrote: » No I didn’t raise the CPOing of 70 apartments as something that prevents DU. I raised the diversion of the sewer as something that prevents DU at Tara st. Again I’ll point out that the fact that Metrolink are willing to CPO 70 properties (say 300k an apartment is €21m) suggests that the sewer diversion is either more expensive or technically not feasible. This means that you couldn’t divert it for a DU station here either!! The fact that the apartments are being demolished has no effect on the location of a DU station regardless of whether they are CPOed as part of Metrolink or DU. This means that there will not be the potential for a cut + cover station at Tara which means that shorting the tunnel and removing a satiation as you suggested will not reduce the costs. Therefore the option of a route via SSG and GCD with cut + cover stations at both will likely be cheaper despite the increased length of tunnel!!!
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Complete and utter nonsense. Your train of logic is deeply flawed. There is no correlation between CPOing the apartments and avoiding the sewer. The alignment means that the apartments have to be demolished and that the sewer wasn't interfered with. One was an unavoidable expense, there other didn't even materialise, it wasn't a case of either/or and they went for the cheaper option. If you honestly believe that building a 25% longer tunnel, double the length of stations and an extra station is likely to be cheaper than you are delusional. And don't bring up again "your" cost savings of a single bore tunnel, a detailed engineering report will determine if that is possible and if it is, it will apply to all tunnel routes.
Last Stop wrote: » Eh have you read the Metrolink Tara St report? One of the options considered was moving the station further south but this was ruled out mainly due to the sewer! Like I said it must be a pretty difficult sewer to divert if they are going to spend over €20m on CPO instead.
The use of cut + cover is a multiple cheaper than a mined station option so yes I do believe it’s going to be cheaper. Look at Townsend st again: there simply isn’t the fave for even a mined station as there is nowhere to access it. DU is at least 15 years away and by that stage, Metrolink will be built and the sites above sold for redevelopment.
And regarding the use of a single bore tunnel, there already is a detailed engineering report completed as part of Metrolink, and seeing as they went for single bore, it is logical to expect DU to do the same...
Last Stop wrote: » Eh have you read the Metrolink Tara St report? One of the options considered was moving the station further south but this was ruled out mainly due to the sewer! Like I said it must be a pretty difficult sewer to divert if they are going to spend over €20m on CPO instead. The use of cut + cover is a multiple cheaper than a mined station option so yes I do believe it’s going to be cheaper. Look at Townsend st again: there simply isn’t the fave for even a mined station as there is nowhere to access it. DU is at least 15 years away and by that stage, Metrolink will be built and the sites above sold for redevelopment. And regarding the use of a single bore tunnel, there already is a detailed engineering report completed as part of Metrolink, and seeing as they went for single bore, it is logical to expect DU to do the same...
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The report describes the sewer as "an important constraint", and doesn't make an estimate on cost. The station box for the chosen location is shown extending under Townsend Street so it is quite possible it will impact on the sewer. And the choice was not "spend over €20m on CPO instead", all other options would incur significant CPO costs as well, you can't equate the cost of CPOing the apartments with the cost of moving the sewer. I accept that a station at Tara Street may not work. I believe it to be a better location for the interchange. Knocking 1km off the tunnel and dropping a station would yield significant savings, far greater than dealing with a sewer at one location. That is not logical at all. It is a completely different tunnel, with a completely different set of constraints for a completely different system with completely different rolling stock. DU will be closer to Crossrail which is twin bore tunnels.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The report describes the sewer as "an important constraint", and doesn't make an estimate on cost. The station box for the chosen location is shown extending under Townsend Street so it is quite possible it will impact on the sewer. And the choice was not "spend over €20m on CPO instead", all other options would incur significant CPO costs as well, you can't equate the cost of CPOing the apartments with the cost of moving the sewer.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I accept that a station at Tara Street may not work. I believe it to be a better location for the interchange. Knocking 1km off the tunnel and dropping a station would yield significant savings, far greater than dealing with a sewer at one location.
cgcsb wrote: » It's likely that something will be done about the Northern line in advance of DU, be that a third track for long distance services or some more complex solution. The third track would cost relatively little and would accommodate an hourly, or greater service to Belfast, while allowing DARTs to keep he existing tracks for a 5min frequency service if need be.
D.L.R. wrote: » That would be good, but I'm sceptical. And while 3 tracks is obviously better than 2, its still not really enough in the long term for one of the busiest lines in the country. I'll never understand why the route wasn't protected from overdevelopment.
Qrt wrote: » What are the issues with the line’s expansion? Is it just the back gardens backing onto the line thing? Would all the stations have to be demolished and rebuilt?
donvito99 wrote: » Suggestion: inland route via the Airport, Port Tunnel (one bore, the other would have to be bi directional for lorries, other traffic) and CIE yards into Connolly? All Belfast/outer Commuters would be removed from the existing main line at Donabate. Everything south of that point would operate as DART/heavy metro.
D.L.R. wrote: » Using one of the port tunnels is a bit too out there I think, but a tunneled route might be the only practical solution. You could quad track as far as Clontarf golf club and then tunnel under the north suburbs to the Airport, then come above ground and continue to Drogheda. This would take all long distance traffic off the Northern line. Science fiction though, lets be honest.
donvito99 wrote: » I think the tunnel diameter at approx. 10m (usable) would be too tight in any case. A tunnel (without stations, usually the expensive bit) would probably be cheaper and politically easier than CPOing everyone from Clontarf to Howth Junction.
D.L.R. wrote: » Is there a better example of bad planning than the housing built along the northern line? That took a certain kind of special.
SeanW wrote: » The same thing is happening along the Maynooth line. Less than a mile from Clonsilla on the City side, new houses etc. are being built right next to the track.
CatInABox wrote: » Don't agree with all your thoughts Last Stop, but I think you're broadly correct here. The Metrolink project has been one long, in-depth presentation on how to minimise risk and complexity in a project, and the example of the College Gate apartments is probably the prime example. The NTA has chosen to go through the CPO process for 70 apartments, despite the optics of destroying homes during a housing crisis, all to avoid dealing with the two sewers on Townsend St. I can't imagine that a Dart Underground project will ignore the learnings of Metrolink either, the main one being "the simpler, the better". I say that they might look at Tara St, but conclude that there's simply no room available in the area (other than a dig that crosses into the Liffey, but again, that'd be ruled out by being more complex). On the other hand, I think SSG would be looked on favourably by the planners. I think a station along the south side of the park would be the option that they go for, as it would allow them to dig without touching Traders Arch or draining the pond, both of which were bones of contention in the original plans. They don't really care about having "easy" interchange here either (if they did then they would have done more with integrating Metrolink with the Luas already), so having station on each side of the green would be "acceptable". Not ideal, but acceptable. Irish Rail still consider Pearse St as an integral part of any DU plan as well, as recently as last year they got the ABP to reject proposals on Sandwith St saying a station was going in there. Hilariously, that means that the owner can't develop the site, which also means that they're getting hit with levies for not developing the site.
Zebra3 wrote: » I think if ML is built and turns out to be a resounding success (I’d expect it to be), with the changes to the Maynooth and Kildare lines, I’d expect a second metro line to be more likely than DU.
