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

strassenwo!f

I am not a troll, Poteen.

We used to have the stuff that this line had to be built through St. Stephen's Green because that was the only place where an East-West line could connect with the LUAS. That will shortly not be true, as the cross-city LUAS is built.

The interconnector could connect with the LUAS at St. Stephen's Green or at College Green. I know there would be difficulty at College Green, but does the proposed route via St. Stephen's Green, which is longer and introduces two curves to the route, outweigh those difficulties?

Does a St. Stephen's Green route offer better integration? It's not obvious that it does.

Does it serve more people? Doubtful.

Would St. Stephen's Green be easier to build? Certainly.

Would a St. Stephen's Green station be better for the city in the long term? I don't believe so.

Absolutely not trolling. These are legitimate questions.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But, long-term, wouldn't it make sense to have the interchange in the centre?

Not necessarily. If you look at the standard Soviet and eastern bloc metro design they use an intersection of 3 lines forming a triangle around the centre. More than 1 way to skin a cat.

poteen o hooley

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes I am a troll, Poteen, I can't help myself

I invented the fairytale that this line had to be built through St. Stephen's Green because that was the only place where an East-West line could connect with the LUAS. That will shortly not be true, as the cross-city LUAS is built.

On planet strassenwolf the interconnector could connect with the LUAS at St. Stephen's Green or at College Green. I know it would be impossible at College Green for all the reasons explained by posters and the RPA, but does the proposed route via St. Stephen's Green, which is the only possible one mean I cannot keep asking the same questions over and over again?
That's just not fair.

Does a St. Stephen's Green route offer better integration? Obviously it does.

Does it serve more people? yes but but but...........

Would St. Stephen's Green be easier to build? Even with all the Roman bodies buried there?

Would a St. Stephen's Green station disallow me mouth foaming bizarrely long term? I don't believe so.

This is real trolling way hay!

Fixed that for ya

AngryLips

Changing the topic a little bit but was it ever considered to bring the tunnel further north broadly along the alignment of the northern line as a means of reducing conflict with intercity and Droheda/Dundalk services?

strassenwo!f

Poteen, if you haven't anything useful to contribute to the thread, maybe you should leave it.

I'm trying to ask legitimate questions about a 4 billion euro project, which will tie in with another project costing around 3 billion.

My questions mostly relate to St. Stephen's Green. Does it make sense to build a longer route via St. Stephen's Green, and introduce two curves, to the direct route (as illustrated by Telchak) in order to go there.

Does this achieve better integration? Does it serve more people?

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask these questions. I certainly don't think it is worthy of having my posts misquoted in the way you have done.

poteen o hooley

The sort of legitimate question that occurs to my mind is if strassenwolf has ever been treated for some sort of psychiatric obsessive compulsive disorder.
I don't think it's fair that he hijacks a legitimate debate with repeated obsessional questions while ignoring the answers given to simply repeat the question ad nauseum. Then postures the fake innocent 'poor me I'm only trying to get an answer' nonsense.
Looks like a bit of a mouth foamer to me.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

Not necessarily. If you look at the standard Soviet and eastern bloc metro design they use an intersection of 3 lines forming a triangle around the centre. More than 1 way to skin a cat.

Yes, you're right. But Dublin has only two lines planned, and we are probably several decades away from the third. For the moment, in Dublin, I think it would make sense to have the highest capacity line going through the area which is pretty much unquestionably the centre.

(Ideally, I would like to see construction of the Christchurch DART station being carried out with a view to it being an interchange station in the future. The main DART line going between Heuston and Pearse (and beyond), via College Green, the metro north heading south along two corridors towards Tallaght and Walkinstown, and another metro from Finglas and some other destination on the northside, broadly along the current green LUAS route and some other route, maybe the Stillorgan dual-carriageway. Interchange with the DART at Christchurch, interchange with the other metro line at St. Stephen's Green. I am resigned to this not happening in my lifetime, but there's your Eastern Bloc triangle).

Aard

Warning given to "poteen o hooley" for ad hominem comments.

No more "fixed that for you" posts either.

As always, do not respond to this comment on-thread.

- Moderator.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But, long-term, wouldn't it make sense to have the interchange in the centre?

It is in the centre. That line of your argument was already comprehensively dismantled. Along with the costs one. Do we have to go over everything more than once?

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

PoteenMy questions mostly relate to St. Stephen's Green. Does it make sense to build a longer route via St. Stephen's Green, and introduce two curves, to the direct route (as illustrated by Telchak) in order to go there.

But was in not established a few pages ago, that the two routes were only 6/700 meters different in length.

And are the curves not required, since trains don't really corner that well, so to line with with the northern line and continue one, the "unnecessary" curves are kind of required.

strassenwo!f

So MYOB. we can't just build Telchak's nice route.

What a pity.

TheBandicoot

AngryLips wrote: »

Changing the topic a little bit but was it ever considered to bring the tunnel further north broadly along the alignment of the northern line as a means of reducing conflict with intercity and Droheda/Dundalk services?

I think that's interesting, tunneling under the northern line as a means of 4-tracking the alignment, but I don't think there is anywhere it could surface easily and reconnect to the overground line until it got out beyond at least Clongriffen. Seems massively expensive.

D.L.R.

AngryLips wrote: »

Changing the topic a little bit but was it ever considered to bring the tunnel further north broadly along the alignment of the northern line as a means of reducing conflict with intercity and Droheda/Dundalk services?

If you wanted to quad the northern line with a tunnel, you'd want the express routes in the tunnel, not on the surface. So you wouldn't really need/want the tunnel to be directly under the northern line, it could go anywhere through North Dublin in theory.

However given the expensive of that, quadding the existing (surface) northern line with CPOs is probably cheaper. Parts of it are quaddable already, just some pinch points around Killbarrack etc. Do-able with some political will and probably a couple of short tunnels.

Really though, pretty stupid how houses were zoned right up to the tracks, no forward planning at all.

poteen o hooley

Around 10 years ago when IR was contemplating 4 tracking from the Tolka Bge to Howth junction it was costed at approx 100 million Euros. Tunneling the same distance would cost at least 2 billion depending on how many stations you insert so there is no way the question of tunneling there would arise. Complete fantasy.

Sam Russell

Would not take much to get the northern line into Docklands and into the DU tunnel (if it is built). Even if parts of the northern line were made quad to allow slower trains to get out of the way of express trains, it would speed the line up.

It would only be relevant if the intercity trains were electric so they can use DU.

strassenwo!f

poteen o hooley wrote: »

The sort of legitimate question that occurs to my mind is if strassenwolf has ever been treated for some sort of psychiatric obsessive compulsive disorder.
I don't think it's fair that he hijacks a legitimate debate with repeated obsessional questions while ignoring the answers given to simply repeat the question ad nauseum. Then postures the fake innocent 'poor me I'm only trying to get an answer' nonsense.
Looks like a bit of a mouth foamer to me.

I'm a bona fide poster. How does a disgusting post like this manage to get thanked by five people?

BowWow

Good question! I have removed my thanks - a thanks I have no recollection of giving????

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm a bona fide poster. How does a disgusting post like this manage to get thanked by five people?

If you (or others) have a problem with a post, please report it and do not discuss it on-thread.

Additionally, that poster has received a warning.

Please do not reply to this or any other moderation post on this thread.

- Moderator.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

So MYOB. we can't just build Telchak's nice route.

What a pity.

No, we can't. Is this an end to the looping questions and ignoring answers on it, finally?

strassenwo!f

I think that College Green-Christchurch-St. Stephen's Green triangle mentioned on the previous page could work very well for Dublin.

Christchurch is right in the geographical centre of Dublin. It'd be nice to see the proposed DART station there being constructed with a view to it eventually being an interchange station.

As far as I know, that's not the case at the moment.

I remember that the highest point in Dublin, at the crossroads at Christchurch (Patrick Street, High Street, Lord Edward Street) was about 13 to 14 metres above sea level. The entrances to the station would be a little below that, and this probably places the proposed interconnector DART line at around the same level as the river, at Christchurch.

It would thus seem to be broadly doable to get a metro line (e.g from Finglas) under the river and have a workable interchange with the DART.

Oasis_Dublin

This topic becomes so much shorter when certain a certain member is added to the blocked list!

Victor

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

This topic becomes so much shorter when certain a certain member is added to the blocked list!

Constructive posts only please.

Moderator

Cinephille1888

The four tracking is difficult due to the parts in a cutting through Kilbarrick/Harmonstown etc.

The Rail users group proposed a plan with some engineers and a quick glance from IE that had a tunnel from Clontarf to the Airport/Swords and re-joining the Northern line around Skerries.

They felt this handle the traffic and helped transit led development beyond swords.

Although expensive, and somewhat logical to add an in-land northern route in areas not served as well by Metro North, it has fewer centers and things to catch traffic, being mostly residential. Thus, best used as a faster route.

If it were to be built though it would need substantial work at the Dart Depot, full four tracking out of Connolly through the Clontarf station, supporting the track weight further, defending the port tunnel, and on top of that improving the junction with docklands for better traffic.

This would be pretty difficult, a fly over being best for preventing conflicts is probably a non-starter.

I would like to see East Wall access to the Dart, and a junction change could help this, but the gradient and need for a fly over make this difficult.

If NAMAs new control of Docklands development doesn't include building over the rail yards airspace on approach to Docklands/Spencer dock, demand and benefit of such a station is decreased. Whole area better served with better pedestrian links to Spencer Dock park and Luas. Possibly Luas extension to Business park, and maybe another for interchange with Ferry/Liners.

All pie in the sky stuff really.

Oh and I've asked before where the Balbriggan depot or turn around may be, no one seemed to notice as this thread has a "one track mind" sometimes.

karma_coma

Cinephille1888 wrote: »

If NAMAs new control of Docklands development doesn't include building over the rail yards airspace on approach to Docklands/Spencer dock, demand and benefit of such a station is decreased. Whole area better served with better pedestrian links to Spencer Dock park and Luas. Possibly Luas extension to Business park, and maybe another for interchange with Ferry/Liners.

All pie in the sky stuff really.

Side note, but I think there are two separate projects either proposed or under construction in New York that involve building over rail yards similar to that at Docklands/Spencer Dock.

Some videos here:

youtube.com/watch?v=nAc5hkCEYFU [Manhattan West]
youtube.com/watch?v=XbRxT50jjUo [Hudson Yards].

Edit: boards wont let me post links....

Those may actually both be the same development.

Cinephille1888

Yes I've heard of "Sunnyside yards" and Hudson yards as developments in New York. Of a substantial size and investment from what I can tell.

Hudson yards are the area just west of Penn Station and are part of a massive investment in the area. This includes extending the 7 Subway 1 extra stop, with an unopened one inbetween.

Plans for skyscrapers on top of that development.

The DDDC plans for Spencer Dock area included the airspace as a possible site for the "phase 3" inclusion of social housing. 3 or 4 planners/ architects submitted plans for how housing would be put here. Some with terraces, some with mixed/ user higher density.

The east wall community liked the terraces, but DDDC went it's own way, and put it all on the back burner, long before it got into trouble. It never really cared about fulfilling its obligation to the local community to provide affordable and social housing.

Fingers crossed NAMA does something in a similar vein.

Spencer dock /Docklands /Luas interchange in the area would be better served by a community of various backgrounds and a mixed density in line with recent buildings.

Docklands is already unpopular with Dunboyne/Maynooth commuters due to its remoteness from transport connections and workplaces.

Many have been said to prefer to exit at Connolly and walk through the IFSC or get the luas. The Docklands station does have pedestrian access to measly bit of park they put along the canal, but it is not walkable on the same side of the canal to the quays, you have to climb up to the new bridge to cross or keep going.

A loading barrier is up beside the convention centre, and the dock gates are also closed with a chain and not pedestrian friendly.

1huge1

I don't think the Maynooth commuter line goes to the Docklands though, they have to change at Clonsilla, as far as I know only the M3 parkway station goes to Docklands directly but I could be mistaken.

With NAMA now committed to the construction of new apartments/commerical buildings, I think the Docklands train station will become more and more attractive and especially so if we ever see the DU built. I would imagine the Docklands is underutilised at the moment but it has great potential in my opinion.

TheBandicoot

Just to be clear, DU would not serve the existing station. It will serve a new underground station slightly further East roughly at Spencer Dock Luas, about 5 minutes walk from the existing Dockalnds station.

1huge1

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Just to be clear, DU would not serve the existing station. It will serve a new underground station slightly further East roughly at Spencer Dock Luas, about 5 minutes walk from the existing Dockalnds station.

Oh I see, thought it would be underneath the existing station.

Thanks for that

TheBandicoot

I would love to show you the detailed plan of that part of the line, but unfortunately http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/ is not longer online. I posted about this in this thread and that got lost too. It is very annoying to not have access to the plans anymore- does anyone have a mirror, or know who to contact?

1huge1

Is it one of these? http://www.pleanala.ie/news/NA0005/NA0005.htm