Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

DART underground - options

1171819202123»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,543 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    I think it's near certain that once all contracts are signed for the construction of the current metro line planning will start straight away for the second line/phase



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    There are no current plans for metro west either, but government plans can't stop boards.ie/infrastructure!

    Boards is in danger of closing very soon, if it's yer thing, go here (use your boards.ie email!)

    👇️ 👇️



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,728 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    No, extremely unlikely.

    Maybe plans to extend the Metrolink North and South will develop over the next few years. Then there is DART Underground after that. Also there will likely be a focus on building multiple new Luas lines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,696 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    I'm all for extending the branch past Howth Junction, but the issue with turning the branch into an automated metro is that the level crossings would need to be closed, which would be difficult and would face stiff opposition. Metro west (assuming it will be more of a luas-type offering rather than automated) or the other Luas options mentioned would suit fine if anything was to be done IMO.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,205 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123982296#Comment_123982296

    Is the population there to justify new stops/stations?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Yes, last time they looked at MetroWest, a BRT was the option that they decided upon. By the time that they actually get around to looking at it again, long after we're all dead most likely, a Luas option would probably be chosen.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,728 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yes, The Luas 2050 Vision has it as a Luas line. Obviously that isn't an official policy, but it is likely to play a big part in future National Development Plans



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,129 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    If the Howth branch was converted to Luas it would be possible to split the end like Saggart/Tallaght at Sutton level crossing. Nice alignment there to take a branch towards Sutton some day.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 842 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    If this is viewed more like a Luas style system (which has more frequent stops) rather than Dart/heavy rail (which is typically less frequent), then yes for sure.

    Based on CSO data, around 10-12,000 people along that corridor. Baldoyle could certainly be redeveloped, which would benefit from an extra stop, and would boost the population on the corridor to 13-15,000?...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,546 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I don't think that there is any chance of turning the branch into an automated metro. West of Howth J, there would be significant interactions with road traffic but this would be fine for Luas. I also think people are losing the run of themselves rolling it into Metro West. Metro West is dead and trying to exhume it would only further delay infrastructure delivery.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,129 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The problem with it not being part of metro west (or something) is that it really has to connect to the rest of the Luas network somewhere. A standalone Luas of a few km would be a worse financial prospect than keeping it a heavy rail alignment, because the trams would have to be trucked to a maintenance facility. There is no way a standalone depot for a short Luas branch would add up.

    I think though that the Finglas Luas could reasonably be extended out to Howth and subsume the heavy rail alignment from Howth Jcn to Howth Harbour (and possibly branch off to Sutton). I am not sure how steep the gradients are on Howth Head but in an ideal world the line would be extended beyond the existing station to where most of the people live.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,546 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    It wouldn't need a standalone depot, just piggyback on the Metrolink depot, it'll all be the same gauge at least.

    Finglas Luas to Howth is 15km as the crow flies. It would make the Green Line a awfully long meandering route. The vast majority of people from either side are likely only to use it as far as the airport but from the Finglas side, Luas + Metro already has that covered. I don't see the benefits in a magical mystery tour Luas, if that's what you want, a bus route would be a fraction of the price.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭gjim


    I had a look at the map again and added the Luas lines and made a few other corrections as suggested above (the software makes it very easy).

    I removed ML upgrade of south of Charlemont. The idea is to add the DART tunnel to what is currently planned or started. Thus the map adds the tunnel assuming DART+, Metrolink and the Luas extension to Charlestown are completed.

    Dublin post interconnector-7.png

    Like I said, if anyone wants to fiddle with it, feel free: https://tennessine.co.uk/metro/be1b14adae85c1b



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 981 ✭✭✭MICKEYG


    In the original DU there was a stop at Christchurch. I believe it was expensive (needed to be mined) but it would be shame if there was no stop in the area as it has huge potential and the gap between SSG and Heuston is very big.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    The last published route in the 2019 study still included the High Street/Christchurch stop. Also, I think this is actually the only station that would not have to be mined out. There’s about 8000 square metres of road between Cornmarket and Christchurch Place that could be dug out to create the station box. The area is about 20 metres at its narrowest, but the large plazas either side allow for good sized entrance halls to be constructed:

    image.png

    I accept that this would be enormously disruptive to city traffic, but it’s still a lot cheaper than mining.

    (For those unfamiliar with this area, the Dublin City Council offices are at the top right of this image, the Four Courts are directly north of here, across the river).

    This area is also where I’d personally like to see a second Metro, which would run north/south through the core of the old city here. I'd hope that when DU is revived, it is done so in parallel with plans for a second metro line, so simple city-centre interchanges can be put in place between them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭spark23


    I imagine with 4North plus future airport link from Clongriffen, one could get the airport Dart from Howth junction to airport, no need for Luas extension



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭gjim


    Yes the map does not include non-terminal and non-interconnecting stations.

    I agree that a Christchurch station could be constructed from the surface - maybe one positive that has emerged from the massively destructive road widening schemes from the last century.

    I also believe the old DU plan - like the old metro north plan underestimated the cost and effort required to mine stations. And much of it, like 2km of tunnel between Heuston and Inchicore, doesn’t make sense post DART+

    Any new plan will surely rectify this - Heuston will use cut n cover by building the portal in the massive site behind the station currently used for car parking instead of starting the tunnel in inchicore and trying to mine a station under the Hueston platforms. It would also be feasible to do the same for Stephens’s Green (reinstating mature trees afterwards) although politics might be an issue. That leaves Pearse and Spencer Dock to be mined. And if you wanted to avoid Pearse some studies have suggested GCD could be drained to allow cut n cover as an alternative.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I think Pearse is still preferable because it has the above-ground space that would be needed to accommodate a DART-to-DART transfer station - and the location is more central too. I really don’t think there’s any way you’d get permission to dig St Stephen’s Green, especially as the proposed station box is at the northern side of the Green in all of the designs - this is also the only location that allows for an easy interchange with Metro.

    At Heuston, though, I feel the DART station really needs to be at the front of the station, not the back, because all of the connecting modes (including mainline rail) are accessed from the front of the station. One proposal was to dig the station under the grounds of Dr Steeven’s Hospital, and the Guinness site, something like this:

    image.png

    I know that this exact location becomes almost impossible if you launch the tunnel from within Heuston itself, but in that case, a hybrid dig-down-then-mine-across build is still possible, starting at the northwest corner of the Guinness site, and working eastward, like this:

    image.png


    This would still be cheaper than a completely mined station, and may actually be not much more expensive than a true cut-and-cover here, given the need to preserve the roads and the Luas tracks above.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭OisinCooke


    I think Heuston could also potentially be cut and cover dug under St. John’s Road, maybe by closing one side of the road at a time and doing the northbound track and platform first, then the southbound etc.

    May not be feasible, I don’t really know anything about the way these things are done or how much space is needed on the surface.

    Christchurch can definitely be done cut and cover in a similar manner. In terms of SSG, Pearse and Spencer Dock, the latter will definitely need to be mined thanks to the DART+ plans. For Pearse, and particularly SSG obviously the park would be idea, but we’ll assume that the OPW won’t allow that, (however after the metro dig at the site, your never know, they may be more open…) but could a combination of cut and cover and mining be done for those two stations at a reduced cost…?

    I think ML will give us a great idea as to how far we can push the city in terms of digging up streets/parks for cut and cover underground rail stations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,543 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    Yes sorry the phrasing was wrong, I meant extending south past Charlmeont, not a second line strictly but probably as long as one



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,129 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Luas being sent on metrolink tracks is not going to happen IMO. Lots of cities have orbital tram routes. I don't see the problem with the Finglas Luas being extended to meet metrolink and some day, the DART.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,129 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    St. John's Road is very wide and could easily accomodate cut and cover excavation of a station box. I've said that before on here. Do one side, then the other. By the time DU is started, BusConnects will be done and there will be no excuse for not banning cars from St. John's Road during construction. Only buses need to get through there and there are alternative routes around the back of the Royal Hospital if needs be. There is no need to start DU out at Inchicore.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭gjim


    I think the only station which has to be fully mined would be at Pearse. (I also much prefer Pearse for a whole load of reasons to the GCD option that has been bandied about and I think we could afford the luxury of a single almost fully mined station - particularly at this location - in the project.)

    Spencer Dock could be mostly cut n' cover - with a small amount of mining. IE own the whole of the Park Lane/Spencer Dock Park block, as far as I know, and that's 120m long - so you're not talking about a great deal of mining. If you were completely against mining, and were willing to knock the old North Wall Quay Railway building at the Southern end of the site and live with a big hole blocking Mayor St, you'd have a 160m to work with.

    This means that the original tie-in around West Rd/Stoney Rd would not be possible but no loss - this was one of the weakest elements of the old plan - it would have North bound DARTs crossing inbound trains at grade just outside Connolly - basically shifting some of the Connolly madness north. Extending the tunnel to the Clontarf Rd vicinity (Fairview Park or Clontarf golf club) - you have room to provide a proper conflict-free offline tie-in (north and southbound branches of the DU tracks merging separately on opposite sides).


    At the Heuston end, I agree a station to the front would be much nicer than my suggestion of one behind. I think with careful planning and positioning of stairs/elevators, the inconvenience of a rear station could be minimized, but overall, if there was a way to have the DU platforms to the East, I'd argue for it - it would integrate far better with the other modes.

    The Inchicore as a portal site is dead after DART+ IMO - this section was included to avoid the "gullet" - the pinch point just west of Heuston but DART+ takes care of that issue removing the need for the extra tunnel section in the first place. For this reason I don't think the tunnel could reach a cut n' cover site on Johns Rd.



Advertisement