Iarnrod Eireann plans DART extension to Inchicore

ihatewallies

GerardKeating wrote: »

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.

forgot about that :eek:

strassenwolf

paulm17781 wrote: »

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

I wasn't aware of that.

I was always under the impression that the main point of it was that it would allow a vast increase in the number of people who could be carried on the network.

I never knew there were other "main points" in the plan.

paulm17781 wrote: »

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..

Perhaps you could therefore explain why it is so important to connect Heuston with the proposed Docklands station.

(according to your logic) Won't there soon be a whole host of other ways to make this connection, in the (apparently) unlikely event that someone should wish to make it?

paulm17781

strassenwolf wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that.

I was always under the impression that the main point of it was that it would allow a vast increase in the number of people who could be carried on the network.

I never knew there were other "main points" in the plan.

It is also to open up other parts of the city.

strassenwolf wrote: »

Perhaps you could therefore explain why it is so important to connect Heuston with the proposed Docklands station.

It goes via docklands as a couple of people work in the IFSC, 20,000 or so. It's an easier and more sensible way to connect the lines.

strassenwolf wrote: »

(according to your logic) Won't there soon be a whole host of other ways to make this connection, in the (apparently) unlikely event that someone should wish to make it?

I'm sure there are, this project is about creating a second DART line, one that will go through some of the most popular parts of the city which aren't connected by mainline rail.

gjim

I like the proposed route of the Interconnector and I think it is superiour to the often mentioned alternative of a more central route with an underground connection at Connolly. If you look at a map of Dublin in terms of being a 5 minute walk from a rail station, the proposed route increases the accessibility considerably over the alternative. I prefer the idea of the centre of Dublin being dotted with four slightly spread-out rail public transport hubs (SSG, Pearse, O'Connell St and Connolly) instead of having two "mega" hubs at O'Connell Bridge and Connolly (both somewhat distant from the centre of commercial/recreational activity on the south-side).

KC61

From the Irish Times on Tuesday April 21, 2009

Residents shocked at proposal for rail tunnel at Inchicore

PLAN to open a tunnel portal at the Iarnród Éireann works in Inchicore, south Dublin, as part of the proposed underground Dart extension, was described as shocking by local residents at an information evening yesterday.

Dart Underground, estimated to cost €2 billion, is to run from Inchicore via Heuston rail station, the south inner city and Pearse Street to the Docklands. Underground stations are planned for Heuston, Christchurch, St Stephen's Green and Pearse Station.

There will also be a station at Docklands and, Iarnród Éireann says, a station will be built at Inchicore, although this will be applied for separately and not as part of the overall railway order.

The underground system was originally to have started at Heuston station. However, the extension to Inchicore will dramatically reduce the impact of the tunnel's development on existing rail services during the construction phase.

Dart Underground is predicted to treble existing capacity in the Dart and suburban network from a current 33 million passenger journeys a year to more than 100 million passengers.

A railway order for the public private partnership will be applied for later this year, Iarnród Éireann has said. Work should begin on the project in 2011 and be completed by 2015. It is expected to create up to 7,000 direct jobs during construction.

Tunnel burrowing machines working at 19m (62ft) below the surface, will carve out the 7.5km route, but cut and cover work will be carried out at the Docklands and at Inchicore.

The Iarnród Éireann works at Inchicore is close to residential areas. They are likely to be affected significantly by the development. Four houses in particular, at George's Villas, will be close to the cut and cover works and at least one of those gardens will be the subject of a compulsory purchase order. A garden in Sarsfield Road will also be acquired to facilitate an air vent for the tunnel.

Joanne Holmewood, chairwoman of the CIÉ Residents Association, said residents were shocked by the proposals. "To open a portal in the middle of a residential area is shocking," she said.

They were concerned at the effect of construction on their homes and at the loss of football grounds, a social club and a recreational area as part of the plan. Ms Holmewood also said residents were concerned that the Inchicore station might never be delivered because of access problems.

An Iarnród Éireann spokesman acknowledged that there would be disruption for local residents during construction. He said some residents may be given the option of vacating their homes during construction and being provided with temporary accommodation or Iarnród Éireann may offer to buy them out. "It is a matter for negotiation."

He said construction traffic would reach the site from the west and not through the narrow streets of the railway buildings, and much of the material would be removed from the site by rail. A property protection scheme would also be put in place for houses under which the tunnel will pass.

gjim

KC61 wrote: »

Joanne Holmewood, chairwoman of the CIÉ Residents Association, said residents were shocked by the proposals. "To open a portal in the middle of a residential area is shocking," she said.

:eek: Opening a PORTAL - what are CIE doing? There'll be an invasion of Inchicore by netherworldly daemons, ghouls and cloven hoofed monsters, for sure.

dmeehan

gjim wrote: »

:eek: Opening a PORTAL - what are CIE doing? There'll be an invasion of Inchicore by netherworldly daemons, ghouls and cloven hoofed monsters, for sure.

CIE have the power to open a portal to the other side, the dark side :D:D

lol, funniest post in ages

Nostradamus

KC61 wrote: »

Joanne Holmewood, chairwoman of the CIÉ Residents Association, said residents were shocked by the proposals. "To open a portal in the middle of a residential area is shocking," she said.

strassenwolf

paulm17781 wrote: »

It is also to open up other parts of the city.

I presume by "open up" you mean enable access to rapid transport (metro or DART) in parts of the city which do not currently have this facility?

(If my interpretation of your meaning is correct) Surely St. Stephen's Green would be "opened up" in this way by the arrival of the metro. I can't see how it being the site of an interchange "opens" it up any more.

An interchange at a more central location would involve the metro and a shorter and cheaper interconnector, and would automatically bring people on these lines to the really central parts of the city. All that would be required of interconnector passengers wishing to get to St. Stephen's Green would be a quick change onto the metro.

This would seem to be a better arrangement than the current proposal where the interchange is at St. Stephen's Green and interconnector passengers would need to change to get to the central parts of the city.

paulm17781 wrote: »

It goes via docklands as a couple of people work in the IFSC, 20,000 or so. It's an easier and more sensible way to connect the lines.

I really wouldn't have a problem if this line does go Spencer Dock. But the argument you're making here is a pretty weak one.

Sure there are lots of people working in the IFSC, but for many of them - quite possibly the majority of people living and working in the area - a station at Connolly would be more suitable than a station at Spencer Dock.

I'm sure there are arguments for Spencer Dock over Connolly, though I think you should hesitate before using the above argument again.

paulm17781 wrote: »

I'm sure there are, this project is about creating a second DART line, one that will go through some of the most popular parts of the city which aren't connected by mainline rail.

Really, I wouldn't put the stress on the "mainline rail", as in DART. The important thing is that the different areas of the city are connected with each other, whether that be by DART or by metro.

murphaph

Nostradamus wrote: »

There's something not quite right with this picture.....Oh yes, the correct destination is being displayed and the driver seems happy at his work.

wrt those Inchicore gimps....there's morons in the west screaming for rail infrastructure they don't need and now morons in the east screaming about rail infrastructure they don't want! What a nation of dopes we are.

I wonder does that woman have the first idea what is actually proposed. I doubt it.

BluntGuy

murphaph wrote: »

There's something not quite right with this picture.....Oh yes, the correct destination is being displayed and the driver seems happy at his work.

Well, if the magical portal can make that happen then I'm all for it!

I wonder does that woman have the first idea what is actually proposed. I doubt it.

She knows a few gardens will be ruined. That is all that matters.

IIMII

Nostradamus wrote: »

Brilliant

D.L.R.

This might help clarify what I'm on about. I chose the livemaps image as a base map because it gives a good indication of density. The only problem with the orange idea is the northern portal. All the other 'strategic/spatial' reasons against it are not really that strong.

IIMII

Still thinks it's daft that Docklands will be isolated from all other lines

paulm17781

D.L.R. wrote: »

This might help clarify what I'm on about. I chose the livemaps image as a base map because it gives a good indication of density. The only problem with the orange idea is the northern portal. All the other 'strategic/spatial' reasons against it are not really that strong.

That's a good map, thanks.

I don't know how you can't see that taking Stephen's green in is better. Look at how much more of the city is covered by rail with the existing proposal.

Connecting to the mainline rail is far more straight forward and it avoids the junctions for Maynooth.

The station at Spencer dock is to cross the liffey.

Strassenwolf, if you can't see why a longer line is better, I'm not going to try to describe it. There is no actual advantage to linking Connolly and Heuston, an underground line through the city should take in as much of it as possibe. It allows no more than one chage to get to any part of the commuter services (which it is there for). Once underground the tunneling isn't that much of a cost. Why do a short line when you can do a longer one and have a much larger cachement?

D.L.R.

paulm17781 wrote: »

I don't know how you can't see that taking Stephen's green in is better. Look at how much more of the city is covered by rail with the existing proposal.

Connecting to the mainline rail is far more straight forward and it avoids the junctions for Maynooth.

The station at Spencer dock is to cross the liffey.

There is no actual advantage to linking Connolly and Heuston,

Once underground the tunneling isn't that much of a cost. Why do a short line when you can do a longer one and have a much larger cachement?

- I gave an option that does take in Stephen's Green and Pearse.
- yes I agree it is a more challenging task in terms of engineering
- Spencer dock stn will be on the north bank, you're wrong there. And it will not interface with Docklands mainline stn. Shoddy
- You can't seriously say linking Connolly and Heuston has NO advantages. It is plainly advantageous to link busy stations.
- I'd like to see the cost differential before jumping to conclusions.

murphaph

D.L.R. wrote: »

- You can't seriously say linking Connolly and Heuston has NO advantages. It is plainly advantageous to link busy stations.

Connolly is going to be a lot busier after the Interconnector but the increase will come from Maynooth-Bray DARTs which will meet the Interconnector at Pearse anyway. Connolly has relatively few terminating trains as a trip to the train shed any given day will reveal. It isn't nearly as busy as Heuston vis-a-vis Intercity traffic. Connolly won't really be able to expand it's IC services without quad tracking the Northern Line and then all you have to do is provide and outer interchange station (say at Howth Junction) for travellers to get on their IC trains there. This practice is the norm in Germany (in Berlin for example the central station is in the middle of the city but all IC services stop in the Northweast, North, South and East (location will change when Ostkreuz is renovated) as they pass out of the city to avoid people having to all converge on the central station only to double back on themselves).

donvito99

paulm17781 wrote: »

That's a good map, thanks.

+1

GerardKeating

IIMII wrote: »

Still thinks it's daft that Docklands will be isolated from all other lines

In the origional scheme of things, Docklands would close when Spencer Dock opens...

paulm17781

D.L.R. wrote: »

- Spencer dock stn will be on the north bank, you're wrong there. And it will not interface with Docklands mainline stn. Shoddy

It was definitely proposed to service both sides of the river http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/interconnector_A2.pdf I'm not sure if they've chosen the final location.

The current station wasn't planned to be kept when this was done, that may have changed now. Either way, if that station is there or not. People can change at Pearse to get to Heuston (if on a train from Maynooth / Navan). That's no different to changing at Spencer dock. There'll be little need for that station if IC actually happens anyway.

D.L.R. wrote: »

- You aren't seriously suggesting linking two busy hub train stations has no apparent advantages.

No, I wouldn't say it has no advantages, I don't think it's that big a deal though. It is still fairly easy to get to each with the existing proposal, even now. The existing proposal opens up more of the city including the docklands. That's no bad thing.

IIMII

I know, but I never believed that it was a "temporary" solution.. And I'm fairly sure that had no intention of it being temporary either, just like the whole will we, won't we with electrifying Dunboyne which I believe is unlikely to be electrified and the whole electrification thing was brought in to circumvent objections from residents in Dunboyne as to the noise levels from diesel trains

dowlingm

The interconnector proposal has been around a while, and it may be that the thinking was that BX and Metro North would be a long time coming and therefore connecting the Luas Line B would be a good idea at SSG. As it turns out, interconnector has been delayed significantly to the point where Green Line travellers could connect to it further north. However, the amount of design effort already expended, including geological etc. may make a decision to move the alignment hard to swallow.

The alignment in DLR's picture from Connolly under the river would parallel LUAS C within a hundred metres or so, and where would the station at O'Connell Bridge go? Cut and cover the Liffey? The alternative, a tunnel from Connolly to Pearse, would cut through the most built up parts of IFSC which doesn't seem too clever to me.

D.L.R.

dowlingm wrote: »

The interconnector proposal has been around a while, and it may be that the thinking was that BX and Metro North would be a long time coming and therefore connecting the Luas Line B would be a good idea at SSG. As it turns out, interconnector has been delayed significantly to the point where Green Line travellers could connect to it further north. However, the amount of design effort already expended, including geological etc. may make a decision to move the alignment hard to swallow.

The alignment in DLR's picture from Connolly under the river would parallel LUAS C within a hundred metres or so, and where would the station at O'Connell Bridge go? Cut and cover the Liffey? The alternative, a tunnel from Connolly to Pearse, would cut through the most built up parts of IFSC which doesn't seem too clever to me.

Its more of a conceptual drawing than an architectural schematic. I don't know the how to's or why for's, lie of the land etc. But I don't see how tunneling under the IFSC is different to tunneling under the south city or the Heuston area. And the Red Line is a glorified bus lane, not high capacity mass transit.

gjim

D.L.R. wrote: »

Its more of a conceptual drawing than an architectural schematic. I don't know the how to's or why for's, lie of the land etc. But I don't see how tunneling under the IFSC is different to tunneling under the south city or the Heuston area. And the Red Line is a glorified bus lane, not high capacity mass transit.

I don't get what your issue is. Could you explain it exactly? At one point it seemed your main argument was that routing the Interconnector via O'Connell Bridge would be far superiour/shorter/more central than the more southerly route proposed but now it seems like you're in favour of a routing via SSG but want the interconnector Tunnel to turn at Pearse and duplicate the loop line bridge to Connolly?

To be honest, after years of hearing about "better" interconnector routes, I immediately suspect quackery when I hear about a "superiour" route. It's not quite at the level of claiming you've discovered a perpetual motion machine or a guaranteed weigh-tloss all-you-can-eat diet. To be taken seriously (by me anyway), you will have to clearly and precisely express a) the flaw you see in the currently proposed alignment and b) your preferred alignment and how it addresses this flaw (without muddling the issue with a plethera of "options" each of which just opens up a separate and confusing front for argument).

strassenwolf

paulm17781 wrote: »

Strassenwolf, if you can't see why a longer line is better, I'm not going to try to describe it. There is no actual advantage to linking Connolly and Heuston, an underground line through the city should take in as much of it as possibe. It allows no more than one chage to get to any part of the commuter services (which it is there for). Once underground the tunneling isn't that much of a cost. Why do a short line when you can do a longer one and have a much larger cachement?

Catchment is the key thing here, and I think the above may provide an explanation as to why you can't yet grasp that a shorter line can be more effective than a longer one - and in the case of the interconnector probably would be.

It's because you're focusing on the individual line, rather than on the network of which it is to be part.

(This is understandable - for example, on this board, a lot of the initial discussion of the metro and the interconnector revolved around an either/or scenario: we have the metro or we have the interconnector, etc, etc.)

In the proposed development of an electrified rail network in Dublin, the next major phase is a metro between St. Stephen's Green and Swords, and an underground link between the Kildare line and the Northern line, with interchanges between these two lines and with other electrified rail.

How this is to be achieved, when this can be achieved, and whether we have the money for this to be achieved, are important questions.

For you, though, the important message should be that the proposed metro would enable St. Stephen's Green to become part of that electrified rail network. In your words, this would "open" that area up to rail transport. Stephen’s Green will then have been incorporated into the network.

In terms of catchment for the network, there is thus no gain to be achieved by also building the interconnector through the location.

A more direct, central route would, however, have advantages for people on the interconnector (the country’s highest capacity route) in terms of access to the city centre – and, of course, access to other points on the network, like St. Stephen’s Green – and, being shorter, should have advantages in terms of cost.

murphaph

..but given it's unlikely the green line will be extended northwards or completely converted to metro anytime soon, a passenger travelling Heuston->Harcourt would have to change twice whereas running the IC to intersect the metro and Luas where they meet means a passenger will have just the one change to either mode. A short term 'advantage' one would hope but we know how long these things stagnate.

The fact remains that the south inner city is a much more popular destination than the north inner city where the business district rapidly gives way to corporation flats at the top of O'Connell Street and so few people will be travelling there in comparison to offices all the way to the Grand Canal on the southside.

Shoppers sauntering around Henry Street have the time to make the change at the Green. Commuters must be the target audience for any given infrastructure.

gjim

So the two arguments for a more northerly route is cost and improved catchment?

I seriously doubt the cost differences are likely to be significant; IR seem happy to add 2.5km of tunnel at the Hueston end to simplify construction. I can't see how saving a km or two in the centre would have significant cost savings; I suspect the huge fixed costs involved in getting a TBM into the ground and building individual stations swamp the costs of letting the TBM run for an extra month. Unless you are proposing fewer stations, you'll have to prove that the cost savings could be significant.

As for catchment, I disagree. A more northern central underground DART station is going to be too close to Tara St., the line will miss integration with the green Luas and end up closely paralleling the red Luas for most of it's length. When you consider the difference between urban nodes (destinations) and corridors (thoroughfares), the apparent benefit of O'Connell bridge or College Green as a central DART station location evaporates even though they seem very busy; the M50 is the busiest road in the country but that doesn't mean most drivers are trying to get to a point on the M50. Similarly there are pinch points of pedestrian and traffic movements in the city but it does not mean that people want to get to those places. I suspect you'd find it very difficult indeed to show that there was a higher catchment within a 5 minute walk of O'Connell bridge than there is from SSG; the latter brings people into the second busiest shopping district, the busiest area for bars/restaurants/clubs, a far more densely populated area and the edge of the old (and still biggest) central commercial district of the city while Spensor Dock brings you into the new and expanding central commercial district of the city.

strassenwolf

Lads, I can't currently pick up on all the points you're making, but I would just like to clarify a couple of things which I don't understand or where I may have been misunderstood.

murphaph wrote:

..but given it's unlikely the green line will be extended northwards or completely converted to metro anytime soon, a passenger travelling Heuston->Harcourt would have to change twice whereas running the IC to intersect the metro and Luas where they meet means a passenger will have just the one change to either mode. A short term 'advantage' one would hope but we know how long these things stagnate.

But hasn't the preferred alignment for the LUAS link-up been selected? (It wouldn't have been my choice, with the new bridge, etc., but the bones of the originally planned route are still there. The interconnector could hardly miss it, no matter what route it takes through the city).

I realise that there are some doubts about the arrangements for funding of both the metro and the interconnector, but surely the country can still rustle up enough cash for a link between the two LUAS lines?

And even if we can't find such relatively small funding at the moment, it shouldn't affect the plans for the higher capacity lines. When they're built, it should be quite straightforward to tie the LUAS in with these lines, by building a link-up, etc.

gjim wrote:

So the two arguments for a more northerly route is cost and improved catchment?

No. Those are not the arguments.

A more northerly route does not, as far as I know, improve the catchment of the network. But, being shorter, its construction should reduce the cost.

A more southerly route cannot increase the catchment of the network (as discussed above). But, being longer, its construction should increase the cost.

Zebra3

A northern alignment of the IC simply smacks of duplicating the Tallaght Luas line for me.

It might be cheaper, but doesn't seem to represent as good value as money as the planned IC.

SeanW

gjim wrote:

IR seem happy to add 2.5km of tunnel at the Hueston end to simplify construction.

Whatever about the rest of your post, I felt this needs to be corrected.

Aparently, the original plan was to have the DART surfacing in the freight yards in Heuston, which would have brought the trains through some part of the station throat and limited the potential to separate DARTs from long distance services, not only there but in the short stretch between Heuston and Inchicore that would be very difficult to quad-track and for that reason was not included in the original Kildare Route Project (it was and will remain triple track).

Adding extra length to the Interconnector beyond Heuston will ensure that the entire projects reaches the absolute fullest of its potential and was no trivial matter.