Iarnrod Eireann plans DART extension to Inchicore

Nostradamus

Victor wrote: »

Cardon monoxide is less of a problem these days with these new-fanagled catalyic converters. Cardon dioxide and soot would still be a problem.

If you wanted to do Cork-St. Stephen's Green-Belfast you could add an electric loco at Adamstown / Heuston and drop it at Clongriffen / Drogheda.

and IE and NIR got together and they really showed a bit of moxy could look into diesel/electric hybrid locos which would only have to up pantograph for the DART section.

A Dublin-Cork-Belfast express train using the Interconnector. Dare we dream...

D.L.R.

Nostradamus wrote: »

A Dublin-Cork-Belfast express train using the Interconnector. Dare we dream...

Eh not that dream. Interconnector will/should be for darts only. All for a dedicated line between the 3 main cities though.

Cool Mo D

D.L.R. wrote: »

Eh not that dream. Interconnector will/should be for darts only. All for a dedicated line between the 3 main cities though.

If we're dreaming that dream, why not run Dublin - Cork services to/from Connolly (via the PPT), and move Belfast to hourly, enabling decent transfers. And create more space in Connolly by reopening bay platforms in Pearse, and running Gorey/Rosslare services from there.

ardmacha

A completed interconnector would provide a means of moving rolling stock around, if it ever happens. Could this allow a refurbishment of the Phoenix Park tunnel for other projects?

D.L.R.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

And create more space in Connolly by reopening bay platforms in Pearse, and running Gorey/Rosslare services from there.

Thats my view also. There's no reason at all for commuter trains to be on the loopline when we have the DART. Crazy logic.

strassenwolf

murphaph wrote:

I personally think the Green is the ideal spot. College Green is artificially busy because of Trinity College funneling everyone through it.

Nooo.....say it ain't so...!

Trinity have started human funnelling!

Is there no END to the depravity of those protestants?


More seriously, murphaph, perhaps you could take some time to explain what your post actually means, or what it was meant to mean.

murphaph wrote:

If ever built, the interchange here will be amongst the best in Europe-only missing long distance trains and even they will be easily reachable.

murphaph wrote:

That's what I mean when I say amongst the best-nice quick transfers with modes directly on top of one another.

At the proposed St. Stephen's Green interchange, would you say that the modes are directly on top of one another? And, if not, what might be the features of the interchange which will render it amongst the best interchanges in Europe.

DWCommuter

Cool Mo D wrote: »

If we're dreaming that dream, why not run Dublin - Cork services to/from Connolly (via the PPT), and move Belfast to hourly, enabling decent transfers. And create more space in Connolly by reopening bay platforms in Pearse, and running Gorey/Rosslare services from there.

Oh the amount of times IE were told they could use the train shed (main station) for terminating PPT services. They just don't want to use it. Full stop. It doesn't exist. Its not there.

DWCommuter

ardmacha wrote: »

A completed interconnector would provide a means of moving rolling stock around, if it ever happens. Could this allow a refurbishment of the Phoenix Park tunnel for other projects?

The PPT isn't even featured in the Dublin Rail plan pre or post interconnector. It was bricked up in 1989, the track was ripped up and stored. Its now being used on the WRC. The tunnel and track you see now is conceptual art by little known leitrim artist batty macsnifty.

IE told me so.

murphaph

strassenwolf wrote: »

At the proposed St. Stephen's Green interchange, would you say that the modes are directly on top of one another? And, if not, what might be the features of the interchange which will render it amongst the best interchanges in Europe.

The modes are pretty much slap bang on top of one another from my interpretation of the plans presented thusfar. I use interchanges here where you have to go up one set of stairs, down another and use long walkways and so on. Stephen's Green is nothing like this. It shouldn't be either, as a new build and all. How much closer can the tram be brought to the metro, and the metro to the Interconnector? Not much I'd say.

D.L.R.

murphaph wrote: »

The modes are pretty much slap bang on top of one another from my interpretation of the plans presented thusfar. I use interchanges here where you have to go up one set of stairs, down another and use long walkways and so on. Stephen's Green is nothing like this. It shouldn't be either, as a new build and all. How much closer can the tram be brought to the metro, and the metro to the Interconnector? Not much I'd say.

I still think its a wasted opportunity for OCB. That has grand central written all over it, trans-river, and its slap bang between Heuston and Connolly. What more invitation does an architect or engineer want?

Seems like a real pity to overlook that option just because "Connolly is too busy" - what a wishy washy excuse. Was Waterloo "too busy" for the Eurostar? Probably. But they expanded it.

Anyway, SSG is a decent alternative and a nice compact setup yes. As long as they leave the possibility of fusing MN to the Green Line later on.

dereko1969

D.L.R. wrote: »

I still think its a wasted opportunity for OCB. That has grand central written all over it, trans-river, and its slap bang between Heuston and Connolly. What more invitation does an architect or engineer want?

what's the point in having an interchange at O'Connell Bridge? because architects might get to build something pretty? or should it serve, you know, like a transport purpose?
Diverting the Dart Underground along the river serves what purpose exactly? How does it open up different areas of the city for direct rail transport? The Dart Underground will let people travel directly to Stephen's Green from Kildare and North County Dublin/Louth and with one change from North Kildare/Meath/Wicklow/South Dublin/Wexford, it's not about linking Heuston and Connolly (which it won't) it's about setting up a second Dart line and moving people where they want to go.

paulm17781

We should be moving away from the 1950s mindset that O'Connell st. is the "city centre". Stephen's green / Grafton st. is a much more popular area these days and a good rail interchange there makes much more sense than being left at a bridge.

D.L.R.

dereko1969 wrote: »

what's the point in having an interchange at O'Connell Bridge? because architects might get to build something pretty? or should it serve, you know, like a transport purpose? Diverting the Dart Underground along the river serves what purpose exactly? How does it open up different areas of the city for direct rail transport?

I'm not talking about prettiness. The architectural and engineering task of intergrating the best route (if more challenging to build) into the existing network is what I'm on about. Form following function. That opportunity should be relished. But the authorities have basically said "Nope, too difficult, Connolly full". Docklands is a cop out in that respect, and a messy one too. Thats the most disappointing aspect of the project for me.

Re the Connolly-OCB-Heuston idea, this was the pre interconnector rough cut by IE. The obvious flaw is the awkward tie in to the Northern Line. But otherwise its a better route, no question about it. Why?
- Its a shorter tunnel
- It links Ireland's two busiest stations with high capacity rail (if you can't see the benefit of that I can't make it any plainer)
- added bonus that OCB is directly in between the two. Huge potential usage here, greater than SSG even.
- It connects all modes in the same manner as the planned interconnector, only difference being its a more direct West-East routing with a slighty more northernly connection to Metro.

paulm17781

D.L.R. wrote: »

- It links Ireland's two busiest stations with high capacity rail (if you can't see the benefit of that I can't make it any plainer)

I can't. At what point will you need to do this journey in a single seat? If you need to get from Belfast to Cork. You'd have to change anyway (no electrification. There are a host of ways to do that journey now. PPT already connects them by rail.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Re the Connolly-OCB-Heuston idea:
- It connects all modes in the same manner as the planned interconnector, only difference being its a more direct West-East routing with no dip south to SSG.

One of the main point of the IC is that it goes to SSG.

Who cares about connecting Heuston & Connolly? It's rare that people will need to do this journey and there are a host of ways to do it now.

The engineering behind the current plan is simpler and actually makes far more sense.

bk

paulm17781 wrote: »

We should be moving away from the 1950s mindset that O'Connell st. is the "city centre". Stephen's green / Grafton st. is a much more popular area these days and a good rail interchange there makes much more sense than being left at a bridge.

Well with the massive retail development that will be going on on O'Connell and Henry St. (Arnotts and Quirkys massive redevelopments), the focus of Dublin City Centre is likely to be pulled North again to the O'Connell St area.

paulm17781

bk wrote: »

Well with the massive retail development that will be going on on O'Connell and Henry St. (Arnotts and Quirkys massive redevelopments), the focus of Dublin City Centre is likely to be pulled North again to the O'Connell St area.

I doubt you'll see that quick a shift, if it even happens. I know they're saying it will but...

D.L.R.

paulm17781 wrote: »

I can't. At what point will you need to do this journey in a single seat? If you need to get from Belfast to Cork. You'd have to change anyway (no electrification. There are a host of ways to do that journey now. PPT already connects them by rail.

One of the main point of the IC is that it goes to SSG.

Who cares about connecting Heuston & Connolly? It's rare that people will need to do this journey and there are a host of ways to do it now.

The engineering behind the current plan is simpler and actually makes far more sense.

Its not even the Belfast-Cork factor which sells it. The densest east-west corridor in Dublin is along the river. You have Heuston (massive development going on)-Christchurch-OCB-Busaras/Connolly. Its got everything. Again, SSG route is comparably central, but there's no reason not to go via OCB unless its "ah too much trouble tying it in". Its the best route. Its potentially the busiest route.

What we have ended up with is a compromise. I'm happy enough with it, but its not the optimal route. The Japs or Germans would built it through OCB and Connolly, I've no doubt whatsoever. Of course, they wouldn't have built the Red Line along the north quays, or hamstrung the northern line either.

murphaph

There's fcuk all around Heuston and not much more around Connolly. There's a lot going on around St. Stephen's Green and if you want to go to O'Connell St it's a single simple change at the green and 1 or 2 stops to your destination. The quays are only busy because of the utter dependence on road based transport in the city! The quays make a handy, natural dual carriageway-that's why they're busy all the time. Much of the quays are totally decrepit. Name a "nice" quay where you'd have a destination on? Even the 4 quays either side of this hallowed O'Connell Bridge are awful places. Bachelor's Walk being probably the least offending.

fergm

this project is a joke on so many levels.
one that i haven't seen mentioned yet. is that Iarnrod Eireann is so over staffed and inefficient that the extraordinary high fares we pay for rail services don't even cover half their costs. they had a revenue of 188.8 million in 2007 while the government contributed 189.1 million.
so even though this project is unneccessary and way too costly. everyone is going to have to pay every year just to keep it running.

paulm17781

fergm wrote: »

this project is a joke on so many levels.
one that i haven't seen mentioned yet. is that Iarnrod Eireann is so over staffed and inefficient that the extraordinary high fares we pay for rail services don't even cover half their costs. they had a revenue of 188.8 million in 2007 while the government contributed 189.1 million.
so even though this project is unneccessary and way too costly. everyone is going to have to pay every year just to keep it running.

I'd never looked at it that way :rolleyes:

Why is it unnecessary?

What has IEs inefficiency got to do with this project (yes, they are inefficient)?

This project will massively increase rail user numbers. It will be the busiest line in the state. How will we "have to pay every year just to keep it running"?

murphaph

fergm wrote: »

this project is a joke on so many levels.

Please elaborate..

fergm wrote: »

one that i haven't seen mentioned yet. is that Iarnrod Eireann is so over staffed and inefficient that the extraordinary high fares we pay for rail services don't even cover half their costs. they had a revenue of 188.8 million in 2007 while the government contributed 189.1 million.

Government subsidy, be it local or national, for public transport is the norm across most of Europe. There's usually a direct corrolation between states which offer low subsidy (eg, Ireland, much of the UK outside London/Edinburgh, most of the United States) and the ****tiness of their public transport. Contrast with states which offer high levels of subsidy (say, Germany) and the generally very high standard of their public transport.

fergm wrote: »

so even though this project is unneccessary

As above, please present your alternatives to unlock the capacity of the existing network.

fergm wrote: »

and way too costly

Decent infrastructure costs money-everywhere.

fergm wrote: »

everyone is going to have to pay every year just to keep it running.

Correct. That's how it works in countries with good public transport. You either want it or you don't but it doesn't come free.

The fact that IE aren't exactly the best at running a railway doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in rail. We should seek to reform IE, not throw the baby out with the bath water. IE probably isn't overstaffed compared to many railway companies-but it is inefficient.

D.L.R.

murphaph wrote: »

There's fcuk all around Heuston and not much more around Connolly. There's a lot going on around St. Stephen's Green and if you want to go to O'Connell St it's a single simple change at the green and 1 or 2 stops to your destination. The quays are only busy because of the utter dependence on road based transport in the city! The quays make a handy, natural dual carriageway-that's why they're busy all the time. Much of the quays are totally decrepit. Name a "nice" quay where you'd have a destination on? Even the 4 quays either side of this hallowed O'Connell Bridge are awful places. Bachelor's Walk being probably the least offending.

Ah everywhere in Dublin suffers because of car dependence come on. The river bisects Dublin's commercial core. A child could tell you that. I'm not talking abotu the quays in the narrow sense, but the riverside as a whole.

L1011

fergm wrote: »

this project is a joke on so many levels.
one that i haven't seen mentioned yet. is that Iarnrod Eireann is so over staffed and inefficient that the extraordinary high fares we pay for rail services don't even cover half their costs. they had a revenue of 188.8 million in 2007 while the government contributed 189.1 million.
so even though this project is unneccessary and way too costly. everyone is going to have to pay every year just to keep it running.

The subsidy mostly goes to cover rural/low volume routes. The Interconnector is going to carry huge volumes of high load traffic, the kind which actually makes money.

Cool Mo D

D.L.R. wrote: »

Ah everywhere in Dublin suffers because of car dependence come on. The river bisects Dublin's commercial core. A child could tell you that. I'm not talking abotu the quays in the narrow sense, but the riverside as a whole.

I don't know about that - Dublin has two main commercial cores, around Henry street, and around Grafton street. There ain't so much along the river.

Aard

Would a viable compromise be to swing the interconnector more northerly, and instead of going to the Docklands going under Connoly and surfacing just before Clontarf?


Or is this pandering to too many different people and losing the battle altogether?

Cool Mo D

Aard wrote: »

Would a viable compromise be to swing the interconnector more northerly, and instead of going to the Docklands going under Connoly and surfacing just before Clontarf?


Or is this pandering to too many different people and losing the battle altogether?

I suppose the disadvantage here is that the line to the docklands already exists, whereas trying to tunnel under Connolly would involve disruption to trains going into the station. And docklands is very close to Connolly anyway.

D.L.R.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I don't know about that - Dublin has two main commercial cores, around Henry street, and around Grafton street. There ain't so much along the river.

The point is the river bisects this core, thus its the perfect template for a major route.

I understand pro-interconnector folks' reluctance to find fault with the plans, we just want to see it built right.

Thats fine. But I stand by my arguements for a route that is a) more direct, b) shorter, c) more central and d) more integrated.

L1011

D.L.R. wrote: »

The point is the river bisects this core.

With dead areas either side of it. The Metro will go directly between the cores of the actual business areas as it is.

ihatewallies

Aard wrote: »

Would a viable compromise be to swing the interconnector more northerly, and instead of going to the Docklands going under Connoly and surfacing just before Clontarf?


Or is this pandering to too many different people and losing the battle altogether?

which Clontarf are you talking about? Clontarf rd station?

if so I don't think you've thought that through.

doubt you could get from below Connolly (itself very elevated) in fact below Amiens St surface to track level (again already elevated) before the Tolka.

Then your real problems start.
Because next you have the Clontarf Rd (not the station). Is it possible to get from under the Tolka up to elevated track level before the Clontarf Rd bridge?

Doubt it very much.

So you have to go under the Clontarf Rd as well.

You're nearly halfway to Belfast with your Cork train but by subway:eek:

In reality a tunnel to Connolly wouldn't be able to get up until just south of Killester station.

No harm in that but maybe the cost of the extra tunnelling mitigated against that idea.

GerardKeating

ihatewallies wrote: »

Is it possible to get from under the Tolka up to elevated track level before the Clontarf Rd bridge?.

The Tolka would be the least of the problems with this idea, there is also the Dublin Port Tunnell just after the Tolka.

I supose one option would be to follow near the route of Metro North, come up near the Mater/Mountjoy and link to use the Sligo link to link to the northern line, but this would be much more expensive.

Another option, make "Metro North" a DART line and have the Interconnector link to that rather than the northern line.