[Article] Dublin Interconnector

Victor

OK, spanner in the works.

Why can't Belfast trains operate direct to Spencer Dock on the existing branch from the northern line, Sligo trains via Drumcondra direct to Spencer Dock. Cork (etc.) via the Phoenix Park Tunnel and the Royal Canal route. And Rosslare trains via Connolly on a spur north of the station or at Grand Canal Dock.

OK, one problem would be that trains were terminating and not through running (through running being more efficient passengerwise), but it could be implemented for the price of the new station (and the Rosslare Spur) and both Connolly and Heuston would be made redundant.

Victor

Does anyone have a proper route map for both either the Metro or the Interconnector.

jd wrote:

Aren't those numbers the hourly frequency of service, peak/offpeak?

Well if it is peak/offpeak, they might explain that is what they mean. Ooops, actually it does, but is a little cryptic about it, the concept of a well thought out key marginally escaping the Indo. I thought is was like a German rail map where route 1 and 2 share terminus "A", but go to different terminii ("B" & "C") at the other end.

Victor

maxheadroom wrote:

Neither map contains the luas because the RPA and Connex have removed all trace of the old maps that showed the actual alignments of Luas and only have the diagramatic straight line map available now. If someone can link me to the original maps I'll be glad to update the maps above with luas.

I'm such an anorak, I did this from memory in under two minutes.

murphaph

Victor,

You're right about the S-Bahns running a 20 min schedule (now going to 10 in some places like Haar I believe) but this is because of population density at the outer reaches of these lines. Places like Markt Schwaben and Feldkirchen. They can't justify a metro service out there so a train every 20 mins is perfectly adequate.

The Dublin version would only have 2 or 3 routes using it (initially). These would be Malahide-Kildare (Sallins initially) and Howth-Kildare (Sallins initially). These are all pretty built up places (Sallins serves Naas). A train every 3 minutes from either end is entirely justifiable and because there will be a train at such regular interval hopefully they won't become the overcrowded cattle trucks that the present Arrow into Heuston is. This means that people coming from Kildare/Malahide can travel in comfort and people in the metropolitan area can use the service as in Munich-as a metro.

You mentioned a key feature, 'through running' of trains and this eliminates an awful lot of the problems associated with rail travel in Dublin. Terminating trains in the city centre is messy, especially at Connolly.

Your other post regarding terminating everything at Spencer Dock is a non runner now-The station is to be built with vary few platforms (2?), it is not designed to be a long term terminus solution, rather a stop-gap until the interconnector is built and in any case, even after Treasury Holdings complete the development of the area-most people will still want to reach the 'old' CBD-south inner city and Spencer Dock is just too far to walk.

P11 Comms

murphaph wrote:

Your other post regarding terminating everything at Spencer Dock is a non runner now-The station is to be built with vary few platforms (2?), it is not designed to be a long term terminus solution, rather a stop-gap until the interconnector is built and in any case, even after Treasury Holdings complete the development of the area-most people will still want to reach the 'old' CBD-south inner city and Spencer Dock is just too far to walk.

There are to be three tracks into Spencer Dock surface with two platforms. The Spencer Dock surface station is not a stop gap - it is to remain even when the Interconnector Station below it is built. They current idea they are playing with is that it'll be a terminal station for a Heuston-Dumcondra-Spencer Dock rail service which is to be developed over time.

It's not a long term solution at all - but the surface station is for keepers even with the Interconenctor up and running.

maxheadroom

Victor wrote:

I'm such an anorak, I did this from memory in under two minutes.

- I've updated the maps, and changed the colours around a bit. Also, here's what it would look like if they built both:

http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/railmap-all.jpg

antoinolachtnai

It has to be said that our friends Parsons Brinkerhoff who Iarnrod Eireann have running with this idea have their problems too. The project they are working on in the UK, the West Coast mainline upgrade is said to have overrun by 30 to 50 percent already. Why would you get a bunch of American guys to run a rail project? What possible sense does that make?

That isn't to say it's a bad idea. But we have to be realistic about the costs though. Any project that involves a deep tunnel with stations along the route is going to cost more than the original estimate, possibly a lot more. A lot of the cost estimates we are hearing are just wishful thinking. (Which doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't do the projects, but it does mean we have to be sure the project is really going to bring us where we want to go, and is really going to be beneficial even at a much higher price than the original estimate.)

antoinolachtnai

As I understand it, there is no map for the Metro, because they are nowhere near picking a route yet. The Department of Transport is basically looking for permission in principle to proceed with the idea of running a metro from the city to the airport. This is basically where we were three or four years ago.

If they do get approval, the route will probably end up being a good bit longer than what is being currently suggested, so that it can service more of the suburbs and make a frequent service more viable. It will probably end up looking a lot like the original proposed route, which took a more circuitous journey via the N2/M50 interchange. By the time we are finished, the budget will probably look quite similar to the original budget too.

Victor

maxheadroom wrote:

- I've updated the maps, and changed the colours around a bit. Also, here's what it would look like if they built both: http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/railmap-all.jpg

The Red Line is on the wrong side of Busaras You forgot Luas Line 1B(?) to the docklands.

maxheadroom

Victor wrote:

The Red Line is on the wrong side of Busaras You forgot Luas Line 1B(?) to the docklands.

You take one little shortcut...

Fixed now.

Victor

Victor wrote:

I thought is was like a German rail map where route 1 and 2 share terminus "A", but go to different terminii ("B" & "C") at the other end.

Like this.

Victor

Ok, I went poking about with a map last night and came up with a few things.

Should rail routes outside the canal ring necessarily **dictate** rail routes inside the canal (yes, single interchange to any other line is really handy).

Shouldn't rail target un-/under-developed areas (yellow on map attached) within the city to create a synergy between high-density development and high-quality rail services.

Is the ideological Luas -v- DART to the airport debate actually helping or hindering a service to the airport? Surely it should be the best solution to the problem, not dogma, that dictates what should happen.

If the inter-connector project goes ahead, while Connolly-Clontarf does get freed up for intercity services, Connolly-Clontarf might suffer.

A possible "Circle" line in the city centre suffers from an eccentric orbit, too close in the south and to far to the north. Should the alignment of the inter-connector be moved 300-500m further south than suggested to increase coverage (this wouldn't hugely affect the length)?

Any north-south service in the city centre can be as far east/west as the orange and bright green lines on the attached map.

dmeehan

where's the map?

sliabh

There is one problem with all the maps that are being shown at the moment, they only cover the city centre. I will try to scan something up on Friday when I am back in Dublin. When you map out rail lines across the whole city and it's suburbs then you can see why I think the metro design should get priority.

The interconnector only serves areas in/around the canals. The metro rusn right out to the suburbs and through large areas of the north side that are no where near a rail line now and won't be even after the interconnector was built (with or without the rail link to the airport)

This is a very crude approximation. The red lines are the existing intercity, Dart and Luas lines. The black cross the is airport and the yellow are is that huge area of the city that is getting left out!

Andrew Duffy

I agree that the north west of the city is underserved; however, an overpriced underground tram with few stops is not the best way of doing so. What about the original Luas proposal? The most recent design for the Airport "metro" is the city centre and Sillouge-Airport sections of the DTO's Sandyford-Airport metro line linked by the older plan for a Luas from Dundrum-Sillogue via Harold's Cross, Drumcondra and Ballymun. (http://www.dto.ie/fig7.pdf). The sections stolen from the Metro plan will be altered slightly and dumbed down (no escalators, ffs) to save money.

How about building all the green Luas lines on that map along with the full Interconnector plan? That would be great. Further extending the Airport spur to Swords, building the spur to Dunboyne and upgrading the line from Navan to Drogheda would improve matters even more. Icing on the cake would be a bit of work in Heuston to allow a circle line through the Park Tunnel, a few passing loops or even quadrupling of the Northern line to avoid the Enterprise causing gaps in the timetable, and a Luas spur down to Platform 10 in Heuston.

John R

sliabh wrote:

There is one problem with all the maps that are being shown at the moment, they only cover the city centre. I will try to scan something up on Friday when I am back in Dublin. When you map out rail lines across the whole city and it's suburbs then you can see why I think the metro design should get priority.

The interconnector only serves areas in/around the canals. The metro rusn right out to the suburbs and through large areas of the north side that are no where near a rail line now and won't be even after the interconnector was built (with or without the rail link to the airport)

This is a very crude approximation. The red lines are the existing intercity, Dart and Luas lines. The black cross the is airport and the yellow are is that huge area of the city that is getting left out!

What you seem incapable of understanding is that the interconnector project completely transforms the Kildare line both in the frequency and the usefulness of it's inner-suburban catchment. It is not just about linking Heuston with the DART but about making the most use of the current rail lines which go through densely populated and fast growing areas both inner and outer suburban. Currently the patronage from the Ballyfermot and Clondalkin ares is very low because the train only goes as far as Heuston, as well as the new stations being considered this project would increase the capacity and usefulness of all the current rail lines in the city.
I have no doubt the Airport and Ballymun would benefit from the Metro but in terms of numbers there is a much higher catchment on the Kildare line that is not currently served by a Heuston only link.

jlang

There's also huge development taking place (and potential for much more) just off the Maynooth line. It goes through actual green fields inside the M50 and I can't see that lasting too much longer. Those people would expect to be able to use the train to get into town, but won't be able unless the capacity is improved.

maxheadroom

sliabh wrote:

There is one problem with all the maps that are being shown at the moment, they only cover the city centre.

Ok, let the nitpicking commence

Same naming scheme as before:

http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/Dublin-all.jpg
http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/Dublin-interconn.jpg
http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/Dublin-metro.jpg

I have included a connection to swords for both the IE and Metro solutions, because once you're at the airport it doesn't make a huge amount of difference...

maxheadroom

Oh, and if we are to build some kind of metro connection for the north west of the city, I'd say go from glasnevin junction, to finglas, through ballymun, the airport, then to swords. If you wanted to make it cross city you could then bring it into O'Connel St, then another DART connection at high St, then bring it out to tallaght via Rathmines, Terenure etc. I'm not sure if there's a high enough population density on the southside leg though.

Obviously this depends on the IE Dublin plan being build first...

sliabh

Now that's more like it. Nice work there maxh (why is the "Open Golf Centre" by the airport so important though :-)

Given a choice I would for for the first one i.e. interconnector AND metro.

BrianD

I would agree that joining the airport line to the Maynooth line would be a better option than going to the existing DART line and would better serve the city.

EvilDoctorK

Just a few thoughts on the above and a suggestion of my own.

Obviously the most expensive part would be the tunnelling under city centre areas .. this doesn't mean it shouldn't be done of course .. but clearly it will drive the cost up and so would affect the return on investment on the project.

The tunnel most frequently mentioned is Heuston via Stephens Green, Pearse Station to Spencer Dock - this is a very long tunnel through a majorly built up area ... not impossible for sure but expensive.

Another key requirement is to keep from congesting the lines North of Connolly Station to avoid interfering too much with Northbound DART, Arrow & Enterprise services.

My suggestion .. what about Broadstone ? Could this not allow achievement of many of the benefits with less of a price .. and still leave open future expansion options.

Attached a map with some ideas.

Track Bed exists and could presumably be easily and cheaply enough brought back into service between Glasnevin Junction and Broadstone Station. Broadstone Station is now a Bus Eireann Garage ... Presumably some of it could be reopened as a station with out too much hassle. (It's a very large building only small part of it would be needed for a commuter station)

Broadstone is very close to Smithfield which is getting a much larger population now.. the whole regeneration of the area will make it much more attractive .. could be a catalyst to improve it also

A line could (fairly easily I guess) but built from Glasnevin Junction through Finglas (probably underground) to the M50 from where it could then continue to the Airport approaching the airport from the Western Side (remembering that any second terminal at the airport in the future would probalby be build on this side of the airport)

When this is done some of the Maynooth services could run into Broadstone too (thereby relieving pressure on Connolly) - commuters wouldn't necessarily find this too much of a problem I guess .. Broadstone is the same distance form Parnell Sq. or Stephen's Green as Connolly is.

If the trains were running under the park connecting the Heuston Kildare line to Connolly/Spencer Dock (as I think everyone agrees makes sense) an interchange station could be built at Glasnevin junction allowing passengers to change between trains running to/from Broadstone and Connolly/Spencer Dock

This could all be done fairly cheaply .... no Tunnelling (except in Finglas). For some tunnelling then if you did the above I think the "sensible" tunnel to have would be from the Phoenix Park Tunnel to Broadstone .. and then the obvious onwards connection to make would be towards the Luas at Stephen's Green

Just some ideas .. map attached

luckat

We need a metro - not because it's urbane and sexy and European, but because it doesn't take road space away from cars, trucks, bikes and pedestrians, because it's *underground*.

The interconnect looks like a kludge to me, because it doesn't connect up together. Again, I suggest that a shamrock shape, with crossing and interconnecting loops going south, west and north, is the most economical design from the point of view of giving the most stations and carrying the most people in the least time.

maxheadroom

luckat wrote:

We need a metro - not because it's urbane and sexy and European, but because it doesn't take road space away from cars, trucks, bikes and pedestrians, because it's *underground*.

The interconnect looks like a kludge to me, because it doesn't connect up together. Again, I suggest that a shamrock shape, with crossing and interconnecting loops going south, west and north, is the most economical design from the point of view of giving the most stations and carrying the most people in the least time.

I don't know how you can say that the interconnector doesn't connect things up - that's exactly what it's designed to do. It conencts all the mainline rail services in the city and allows the current network's bottlenecks (mainly the loop line but there are others) to be avoided. I'd like to see your shamrock solution though - could you draw it on the map so we can see what you mean by it?

murphaph

EvilDoctorK wrote:

If the interconnector trains were running under the park (as I think everyone agrees makes sense)

--The interconnector will not run under the park. That line already exists and running trains through it is not a problem but.......LISTEN FOLKS:

The big problem is capacity at Connolly/Loop line (the loop line is the line built to connect Connolly to Pearse) and that's the problem that the interconnector solves whilst also beautifully delivering a hell of a lot of passengers right to the south inner city-A place currently unserved by heavy rail. Once the interconnector is constructed I feel confident we'll see a real expansion to the DART network, both overground and underground. The interconnector will deliver a lot of BUSINESS and MONEY to IE and that's what will convince the Dept. of Finance to authorise further investment by government.

EvilDoctorK

Sorry - I didn't mean the "interconnector" I guess... I meant trains interconnecting Connolly and Heuston on the existing line ... apologies for confusing my terminolgy .. have edited the message.

I know the Interconnector would be a great idea - but what's the costing of it? Lots of things can be great ideas - how about a tunnell to Holyhead .. but costing is the issue

My point was we could have something pretty good for a lot less (and a lot faster) with the option then to extend further with underground links.

BrianD

Sliabh wrote:

When you map out rail lines across the whole city and it's suburbs then you can see why I think the metro design should get priority.

I would give the metro design some thought when an actual design is produced. AT the moment a single line from the airport to a public part at a monumental cost won't be that much use.

As I have stated before, build a rail link to the airport, electrify all existing rail lines, upgrade the signal and fill the gaps between the rail lines with light rail. All this will probably be cheaper in the long run than the single line metro.

It is important to also note that the urban sprawl that bad planning and development has created should not dictate the development of public transport. In many ways a firm policy on public transport links can arrest the sprawl and claw it back. Let's face it, no metro is ever going to serve the sprawl that is the greater Dublin area.

P11 Comms

murphaph wrote:

--The interconnector will deliver a lot of BUSINESS and MONEY to IE and that's what will convince the Dept. of Finance to authorise further investment by government.

Yep, this will be the kind of project which will finnally allow rail transport to develop to it's full potential in Ireland. We get the Interconector we will have a fantastic rail network no longer strangeled and held back by the Loop Line. To say the Interconnector and more importantly the rail plan which is based around it is genius, is putting it mildly - it is inspired and all for €700 LESS than a single Metro line to the Airport.

That's the choice really at the end of the day:

3.4 Billion for a single metro route between Dublin Airport and Stephens Green which only intergrates with the LUAS via an escalator

or

2.7 Billion for one of the best rail systems in Europe, fully intergrated with all modes serving an already well-established customer based of 2 million people?

Next Question!

One important point about the Metro = it will do nothing really to address the traffic problem as the traffic is not caused by people in Dublin but by the residents of West County Dublin, Meath, Kildare, Carlow, Wexford, West Meath and Wicklow. The Interconnector not only offers these people a real and reliable alternative, but it will allow rail services to get to places such as Navan, Dunboyne and encourge the expansion of Park and Ride's in the outer reaches of the GDR so folks can drive a few miles to their nearest station and get on a train because there will be plenty of them. Just like they do all over the rest of Europe.

The Metro is the snowjob, the Interconenctor is the answer.

P11 Comms

straight from the (iron) horse's mouth:

http://www.platform11.org/inter_gov.html

EvilDoctorK

Would the interconnector plan as outlined on http://www.platform11.org/dub_indo_ie.jpg not cause issues with capacity on the stretch from East Wall - Howth Junction ... It looks like there would be a peak capacity requirement of 18 trains + Enterprise services on this section which is currently simple Double Track with 5 DART stations

I haven't seen mention of Quadruple track plans or anything similar for this area (would it be easy given the proximity of housing to some of the sections of this line). Do plans exist to deal with this ?

It woudl be a shame if an ambitious reworking of the city centre section ended up moving the bottleneck up the line without dealing with it.