DART+ (DART Expansion)

D.L.R.

cgcsb wrote: »

Bump, so apparently the moving of Docklands station to a former rail station site on Northwall quay with direct access also provided to the Spencerdock luas platform via central square is being considered, well in advance of DART underground happening.

Great news and a very sensible idea. But until the diggers move in, its just more waffle.

The worry is the state will just follow the original DU plan and build 2 platforms connecting to the Northern line. Really this station should be a 4 track mainline terminal with Dart interchange, considering the freedom to develop here.

roadmaster

Is Docklands still only operating under temporary planning or did they go for full retention in the end

Pete_Cavan

I assume that decisions would have to be made on certain design aspects of the DU tunnel before they can build the new station. Things like tunnel type, bore, alignment, etc. would be effected by the station and would need to be taken into account, not to mention the disruption of tying in.

It would be fantastic if relocating Docklands Station and the pedestrian bridge across the Liffey could be persued as a single contract. It would make a lot of sense as both require substantial heavy engineering works at roughly the same location so muchoone efficient and less disruptive to do together. the tunnel portal and the north side foundations for the bridge are interlinked andthe sdesign of one has to take cognisance of the other so makes sense to do all in one go.

cgcsb

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I assume that decisions would have to be made on certain design aspects of the DU tunnel before they can build the new station. Things like tunnel type, bore, alignment, etc. would be effected by the station and would need to be taken into account, not to mention the disruption of tying in.

It would be fantastic if relocating Docklands Station and the pedestrian bridge across the Liffey could be persued as a single contract. It would make a lot of sense as both require substantial heavy engineering works at roughly the same location so muchoone efficient and less disruptive to do together. the tunnel portal and the north side foundations for the bridge are interlinked andthe sdesign of one has to take cognisance of the other so makes sense to do all in one go.

Track switch and platforms can be set back from the very end of the station with the new tracks continuing a few metres. That gives some flexibility with tie and tunnelling arrangements but I presume the plan is to have the machine(s) start at Heuston and breack through at Spencer Dock as there would be no room to launch a TBM from Spencer Dock. Also I'd imagine single bore will be preferred as with Metrolink.

Pete_Cavan

cgcsb wrote: »

Track switch and platforms can be set back from the very end of the station with the new tracks continuing a few metres. That gives some flexibility with tie and tunnelling arrangements but I presume the plan is to have the machine(s) start at Heuston and breack through at Spencer Dock as there would be no room to launch a TBM from Spencer Dock. Also I'd imagine single bore will be preferred as with Metrolink.

I don't think it's that simple. A few degrees in the Docklands station alignment will have a knock on effect on the curves that can be achieved and the alignment of other stations. If the plan was to hit SSG at a particular angle so that the station causes minimal disruption, you have to be lining it up well before it gets there. Setting Docklands in stone limits what can happen further along the line.

You also need space to get the TBM out of the ground at Docklands which will require more than a few metres. Thesspace has to be big enough for the largest part of the TBM plus you need safe working space between the live platforms and the works zone. A single bore tunnel might not be possible here, its a wider track gauge than Metrolink and a different vehicle type to be accommodated.

D.L.R.

How do you build an operational station which TBMs will be running through at some future date?

You'd have to provide the space somehow, either running the tunnels south or providing spare tracks.

CatInABox

D.L.R. wrote: »

How do you build an operational station which TBMs will be running through at some future date?

You'd have to provide the space somehow, either running the tunnels south or providing spare tracks.

I assume that's why they're thinking of keeping the current Docklands station. Once DU starts up, the new station would be taken apart and the current one started up again.

I see this new station as a good thing really, it's another reduction in the price of DU once it comes around again. It'll already have the Dart Expansion work removed from the price, and this will just be another thing built already.

cgcsb

D.L.R. wrote: »

How do you build an operational station which TBMs will be running through at some future date?

You'd have to provide the space somehow, either running the tunnels south or providing spare tracks.

The existing station will be kept for the reason of providing flexibility while there are a lot of works ongoing. One hopes the new station will initially have a temporary design making it easy to dismantle certain parts to extract a tbm. There will be other works that will mean all sorts of temporary routing on the rail network.

D.L.R.

Opening an underground station and then dismantling it doesn't sound like a cost saving measure tbh. It could even make DU more problematic.

This will have to be more than the usual cheap and cheerful basic job. TBM breakthroughs are no afterthought.

Dats me

D.L.R. wrote: »

Opening an underground station and then dismantling it doesn't sound like a cost saving measure tbh. It could even make DU more problematic.

This will have to be more than the usual cheap and cheerful basic job. TBM breakthroughs are no afterthought.

I thought the original DU plan had the tunnel portal back in East Wall just north of the canal?


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-east-wall-site-for-launch-of-dart-tunnelling-machine-1.615903


TBM would drive through an underground station and be lifted out elsewhere I presume

Pete_Cavan

Dats me wrote: »

I thought the original DU plan had the tunnel portal back in East Wall just north of the canal?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-east-wall-site-for-launch-of-dart-tunnelling-machine-1.615903

TBM would drive through an underground station and be lifted out elsewhere I presume

A TBM can't just drive through an existing operational station.

Rulmeq

Dats me wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-east-wall-site-for-launch-of-dart-tunnelling-machine-1.615903

FFS, the IT were at it back then as well "historic Railway Estate"

CatInABox

D.L.R. wrote: »

Opening an underground station and then dismantling it doesn't sound like a cost saving measure tbh. It could even make DU more problematic.

This will have to be more than the usual cheap and cheerful basic job. TBM breakthroughs are no afterthought.

Not really a cost saving measure, but more of an accounting sleight of hand than anything else. The original DU plans included the Dart Expansion, closing level crossings, signalling upgrades, and of course, the actual tunnels and stations itself.

Since it was last delayed, they've spun out some of the level crossings (Merrion Gates, which is currently delayed now, became part of the cycling budget), the signalling upgrades are almost complete, the Dart Expansion is a separate project itself.

It'll also remove one of the idiocies that came up the last time DU was talked about, namely stopping the tunnel before it crossed the Liffey as a "cost saving" measure.

Pete_Cavan

To accommodate a 180m platform station and allow space to remove a TBM behind the original station building on the Quays, the station would have to start shortly after the tracks have passed under Sheriff Street. There other option would be to extract the TBM in front of the original station building, either in the road or river.

Building the pedestrian bridge will require huge disruption here so perhaps a shaft could be provided as part of its construction. The tunnel(s) would have to extend under the existing building and the tie in happens there, far enough removed from the operating station. In any case, there would have to be substantial design work completed on DU and building the station and bridge as a single project makes a lot of sense.

GerardKeating

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A TBM can't just drive through an existing operational station.

They did when building CrossRail/Purple/Elizabeth line

Last Stop

The TBM has to be launched from Docklands end! The launch site is far too big to be launched from anywhere else particularly when it now looks likely that the other end will move from Inchicore to Heuston. All of that is made possible by a move to a single bore tunnel.
Based on the plans for the new station, it would appear that this will be done in such a way as to accommodate a TBM launch site

prunudo

Anything is possible with a bit of will power and planning. (both lacking in this country mind you!)

https://youtu.be/_BYW4YYqG5A

D.L.R.

GerardKeating wrote: »

They did when building CrossRail/Purple/Elizabeth line

They built new platforms, they didn't send the TBMs through operational areas.

There's enough room at Spencer for 4 tracks, this is the only sensible way to accommodate future TBMs without faffing about like idiots.

bk

prunudo wrote: »

Anything is possible with a bit of will power and planning. (both lacking in this country mind you!)

https://youtu.be/_BYW4YYqG5A

Ha, when I was reading the earlier comments I was thinking of exactly this video and I was going to post it

This isn't rocket science and I think very good news. It certainly strengthens the case for DU and will create a better passenger experience in the meantime.

D.L.R.

The old LNWR station connected to three different lines. Any new Spencer Dock station ought to do that too.

strassenwo!f

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't think it's that simple. A few degrees in the Docklands station alignment will have a knock on effect on the curves that can be achieved and the alignment of other stations. If the plan was to hit SSG at a particular angle so that the station causes minimal disruption, you have to be lining it up well before it gets there. Setting Docklands in stone limits what can happen further along the line.

Just a reminder that the St. Stephen's Green idea only ever emerged because the LUAS Green line was stuck there at the time the interconnector was being floated. It had to be part of the plan because the idea was to integrate all the rail services that were then operating, or would potentially operate (like metronorth), in the city.

(The earlier plans for an east-west rail tunnel under the city never went anywhere near St. Stephen's Green).

Now that the LUAS Green line has been extended there is no need to plan for a route via St. Stephen's Green. The centre of the city - perhaps somewhere like College Green - would seem to be a much better option for a stop on the interconnector route. As I understand it, the city is planning to pedestrianise that area.

Building a route via St. Stephen's Green would seem to be a serious error, as it would be longer and a station there would be seriously compromised from the point of view of passenger uptake.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Now that the LUAS Green line has been extended there is no need to plan for a route via St. Stephen's Green. The centre of the city - perhaps somewhere like College Green - would seem to be a much better option for a stop on the interconnector route. As I understand it, the city is planning to pedestrianise that area.

Building a route via St. Stephen's Green would seem to be a serious error, as it would be longer and a station there would be seriously compromised from the point of view of passenger uptake.

Welcome back.

Irish Rail still want a DU station at Pearse (they keep objecting to all developments at Sandwith street). A station at Park Lane on North Wall Quay, followed by a station at Sandwith street would mean any curve to College Green would be too sharp.

I've no idea of the final route, but I'd be shocked if it didn't include St Stephens Green. It's got downsides, but it's also got way more upsides.

spacetweek

Strassen - as you point out yourself, there is a better thread in which to discuss alternative routings. Keep it there in future.

(Much of this has been discussed on the 'DART Underground - Alternative Routes' thread, for new readers of the board).

strassenwo!f

spacetweek wrote: »

Strassen - as you point out yourself, there is a better thread in which to discuss alternative routings. Keep it there in future.

That thread was locked.

(I was suggesting that any new board readers might go there and have a look, but it is closed to new posts).

strassenwo!f

I would be happy to write in that thread if it was reopened, or to see my recent posts placed there if it was reopened.

But it would perhaps be a bit incongruous having a 'DART Underground - Alternative routes' thread open while there is no current plan for a DART Underground.

MJohnston

I'll let a mod decide, but this thread doesn't seem appropriate because it's about DART projects (which includes more than DU) that are actually planned/in progress.

Some posters, like myself, prefer threads about those things to be informative about the ongoing stuff rather than tangential discussions about hypothetical ideas.

marno21

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057289979

Thread reopened. Hypothetical stuff there and away from this thread please

Sam Russell

Mod: I've moved the posts more appropriate to the other thread for convenience of posters responding to them.

Regards

D.L.R.

Spencer Dock lands should also be preserved above ground for future rail expansion overground.

The way we've historically built over railways lands and adjacent lands was a huge mistake and shouldn't be repeated with the little we have left.

bk

D.L.R. wrote: »

Spencer Dock lands should also be preserved above ground for future rail expansion overground.

The way we've historically built over railways lands and adjacent lands was a huge mistake and shouldn't be repeated with the little we have left.

I agree, but just to point out, that shouldn't preclude development from happening above a ground level rail yard. Take a look at Hudson Yard in Manhattan for what is possible.

Building shopping centers, offices, etc. above bus and rail stations is pretty standard throughout Europe and I wish we did far more of it here.

For instance both Dublin and Cork could do with a private city center coach station, which could have a tall office building on top of them. Similar to the one in Galway.