DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, with the population of Tallaght (72,000), and the population of Clondalkin south of the Hazelhatch line, and sundry other locations in between, you're talking about an overall population of around 100,000 along a potential 8 km stretch between the Hazelhatch line and Tallaght.

By my reckoning, that works out at an average of around twelve and a half thousand potential users per kilometre along this potential route.

I reckon it's got to be worth a proper look.

It's not going to happen as a heavy rail connection. There's nowhere to thread it through Newlands and clondalkin without going underground or elevated. Light rail you can thread through on the surface.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

It's not going to happen as a heavy rail connection. There's nowhere to thread it through Newlands and clondalkin without going underground or elevated. Light rail you can thread through on the surface.

Plenty of tunnels and elevated sections of rail in Ireland. Can't see why you think we can't build a bit more.

strassenwo!f

Sorry, Murphaph, the above answer was glib. Of course I understand that costs are an issue.

Leaving aside Martin Cullen's Transport 21 stunt, the most serious official template for Dublin's transport has been the PFC document, back in 2001 or so.

(Now, I happen to believe that, of all the woolly planning which was going on in Ireland at that time, the DTO's PFC document possibly represents the pinnacle in government-sponsored planning woolliness. With scant regard to what was happening, or had happened, in other cities of a similar size to Dublin, the DTO produced a plan where there were LUAS lines going here, there and everywhere, metro lines here and there, etc., with seemingly no regard for the capacity of the lines concerned, costs, efficiency of delivering people where they want to go, etc.)

But, for the moment, let me take the aforementioned PFC document as the guide, and just talk about Tallaght. There was to be (i) a metro line from St. Stephen's Green, via the south city centre, through Terenure, to Tallaght. There was also to be (ii) the metrowest to Tallaght. And, under construction at that time was, (iii) the LUAS red line, to Tallaght.

Now, I am aware that Ireland's financial situation is not currently as good as it was back in 2001, when PFC was produced. This is why I think that it will, realistically, be around 2030 before the DART Underground project is built. But one of the potential upsides is that it might bring a greater focus on efficiency in many areas, including public transport.

So, instead of building the planned south city all the way to Tallaght,
Dublin should plan it as a metro for the south-west of the city, not as a route to Tallaght. There are savings right there, over what was planned in the PFC document.

Don't build the metrowest. All of that weaving in and out of the laneways and streets of Clondalkin still costs money.

By building a heavy rail line to Tallaght, with tunnels or elevated sections if necessary, you (i) remove the need to build the metrowest in that section of Dublin (costs saved), (ii) you remove the need to build the PFC's south city metro all the way to Tallaght (costs saved), and (iii) you provide a direct, rapid connection between the two biggest urban centres in County Dublin.

I know it's not going to happen tomorrow morning but, when the country is in a better state, that, I believe, would be a very sensible and effective infrastructure project to start with.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Plenty of tunnels and elevated sections of rail in Ireland. Can't see why you think we can't build a bit more.

Boring tunnels for an indirect route to the city from Tallaght via DU makes no sense to me. I think technically we can do anything but I think realistically if we are to start tunneling heavy rail from Tallaght to meet the Interconnector then we may as well tunnel directly to town a la PFC's "Metro south west" or whatever it was called, it was due to be the continuation of Metro North anyway.

You'd NEVER get public support for an elevated heavy rail line through populated parts of Clondalkin. Ballymun with MN was a tough sell (might still be) and Ballymun has wide avenues to run the line on.

Anyway, we need DU first to show people what rail transit can really achieve in Dublin. Your ideas, if they can be implemented, would come much later as part of a bus replacement strategy, once the buses could no longer feed people fast enough into the Kildare Route stations.

I genuinely feel that Tallaght should ultimately be linked more directly (via an extension of MN). This would also serve to bring high capacity rail transport to parts of Dublin (Harold's X, Terenure, Templeogue etc.) that have never known it, killing several birds with one stone and leaving the orbital alignment free for MW (which I firmly believe in some day)

murphaph

To be quite honest I'd take just about ANY solution. Mine, yours, anything would be better than the rubbish that passes for public transport in Dublin now. The biggest obstacle to better public transport in Dublin is Dubliners. They don't care enough about the issue to make the noise needed for politicians to take notice. The Wesht makes noise and as they say the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Dublin gets no oil (relative to its importance to the Irish state it is very poorly catered for).

ardmacha

Dubliners of influence do not travel on public transport.

Copyerselveson

ardmacha wrote: »

Dubliners of influence do not travel on public transport.

I saw Ronnie Drew on the Dart to Greystones a few years back.

D.L.R.

murphaph wrote: »

To be quite honest I'd take just about ANY solution. Mine, yours, anything would be better than the rubbish that passes for public transport in Dublin now. The biggest obstacle to better public transport in Dublin is Dubliners. They don't care enough about the issue to make the noise needed for politicians to take notice. The Wesht makes noise and as they say the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Dublin gets no oil (relative to its importance to the Irish state it is very poorly catered for).

Indeed, amount of Dublin mates I hear say "but we don't need a metro!"

Sad really.

Aard

D.L.R. wrote: »

Indeed, amount of Dublin mates I hear say "but we don't need a metro!"

I'd imagine that the prevailing idea that Dublin has a low population and a low population density causes a lot of this.

monument

Aard wrote: »

I'd imagine that the prevailing idea that Dublin has a low population and a low population density causes a lot of this.

Err... prevailing but off the mark.

Aard

monument wrote: »

Err... prevailing but off the mark.

Yes of course. Quite wide of the mark really.

cgcsb

In my experience the more you get to know a place, the smaller it seems. Many Londoners dont have a 'big city' attitude.

Jack Noble

Transport Minister Leo Varadkar gave an interesting speech on Monday at a Shift2Rail* briefing held in Dublin.

http://www.dttas.ie/speeches/2013/speech-minister-transport-tourism-sport-leo-varadkar-shift2rail-briefing-dublin

Here's the key paragraph:

I recently met with officials from the EU Commission and the Ten-T Executive Agency in Brussels who confirmed their positive views towards the Dart Underground. The EIB had also indicated a keen interest in supporting DU and this interest was confirmed to me at a meeting with the EIB Management Board on 29 April last. The Dart Underground has been included in the new Ten-T Core Network and is part of one of the nine Core Corridors. Dart Underground is likely to be a priority in the context of the next capital plan subject to an appropriate funding package being developed.

As myself and others have pointed out on this thread and the Metro North thread, Dart Underground is very much still in play - and here is Leo saying it's game on for the post-2015 capital plan.

Obviously, it will be dependent on the state of the economy in 2015/16 but today's Q3 GDP/GNP figures and the recent employment data are grounds for optimism that the worst is behind us and we can look forward to a growing economy over the next few years and beyond.

And, as I have also pointed out, if Dart is built in the latter half of the decade, then that will make Metro a much more attractive prospect post-2020.

*For those who are interested, here's who Shift2Rail are. http://www.shift2rail.org/

strassenwo!f

There've been a number of these major projects which I've looked at over the years, like the Crossrail project in London, or the second S-bahn tunnel in Munich. Both of those had proper consultations, had a proper public debate/consultation and were altered as required. In Dublin, where the spend on the cross-city tunnel represents a vastly greater proportion of the available cash (for the entire country), the initial consultation amounted to a pretty hastily-arranged presentation, with all three lines being effectively the same.

All subsequent "consultations" were basically the same.

According to the presentation to An Bord Pleanala, there were two possible locations looked at. Tara Street was one, but the flaw there was that any line through there couldn't also go through St. Stephen's Green. I take it that this means, that while it could have enabled IE to increase the number of passenger journeys to 100 million, it wouldn't have enabled all the various metro, DART and LUAS bits to integrate (because it couldn't go to St. Stephen's Green, where the LUAS was stuck, at the time).

St. Stephen's Green was grand, 'cos it could do all those things. 100 million extra passengers and connect all the bits, even if it meant seriously inefficient uptake and delivery of passengers.

College Green, which could also do all of that 100 million stuff, and allow integration of all forms of public transport, was quite clearly not even examined for the presentation to ABP (or for the public "consultations", for that matter), despite it offering an opportunity for considerably more efficient uptake and delivery of passengers through all the hours that public transport operates in Dublin.

The mind boggles.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

College Green, which could also do all of that 100 million stuff, and allow integration of all forms of public transport, was quite clearly not even examined for the presentation to ABP (or for the public "consultations", for that matter), despite it offering an opportunity for considerably more efficient uptake and delivery of passengers through all the hours that public transport operates in Dublin.

The mind boggles.

The mind boggles indeed; on another thread you were already given a long list of things which generate passengers "through all the hours that public transport operates".

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

The mind boggles indeed; on another thread you were already given a long list of things which generate passengers "through all the hours that public transport operates".

Of course there are things up in the St. Stephen's Green area, like the NCH, the sugar club, Copper's, etc., which generate passengers at these times.

But can these really provide the same volume of uptake and demand as College Green can, over the hours that public transport operates? I don't believe that they can, but if you can produce figures, I'm willing to look.

Monument, all of us on the board know that in any other country in Europe (at least) it would be a requirement, if you were planning to build a longer route than the direct, obvious one, to provide a very clear explanation.

We know that in the case of the interconnector there is no advantage, in terms of integration of LUAS, metro and DART, (one of the main aims of the interconnector) to building it through St. Stephen's Green rather than through a more central location like College Green.

We know that there would also be no advantage to a longer, more expensive route through St. Stephen's Green, if you want to increase the DART capacity to 100 million passengers per annum (the other main aim of the interconnector).

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

An interconnector through St. Stephen's Green would be longer, would be more expensive, and would clearly be much less efficient at uptake and delivery of passengers.

Forgive me but, try as I might, I just can't get it.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

What is the fixation you have with College Green? Something smells of vested interest to me.

Banjoxed

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Of course there are things up in the St. Stephen's Green area, like the NCH, the sugar club, Copper's, etc., which generate passengers at these times.

But can these really provide the same volume of uptake and demand as College Green can, over the hours that public transport operates? I don't believe that they can, but if you can produce figures, I'm willing to look.

Monument, all of us on the board know that in any other country in Europe (at least) it would be a requirement, if you were planning to build a longer route than the direct, obvious one, to provide a very clear explanation.

We know that in the case of the interconnector there is no advantage, in terms of integration of LUAS, metro and DART, (one of the main aims of the interconnector) to building it through St. Stephen's Green rather than through a more central location like College Green.

We know that there would also be no advantage to a longer, more expensive route through St. Stephen's Green, if you want to increase the DART capacity to 100 million passengers per annum (the other main aim of the interconnector).

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

An interconnector through St. Stephen's Green would be longer, would be more expensive, and would clearly be much less efficient at uptake and delivery of passengers.

Forgive me but, try as I might, I just can't get it.

I think we should redesign the wheel.

After all, it has been in use for so long that it must be in need of an upgrade by now.

We can spend millions on consultants to advise us on materials, on structural issues and on the most efficient location for them on vehicles.

We can also then spend a few more on the vehicles themselves. Preferably electric ones.

We can then run up a few Oireachtas committees and a public enquiry or two, just to be sure.

Victor

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Of course there are things up in the St. Stephen's Green area, like the NCH, the sugar club, Copper's, etc., which generate passengers at these times.

But can these really provide the same volume of uptake and demand as College Green can, over the hours that public transport operates? I don't believe that they can, but if you can produce figures, I'm willing to look.

Monument, all of us on the board know that in any other country in Europe (at least) it would be a requirement, if you were planning to build a longer route than the direct, obvious one, to provide a very clear explanation.

We know that in the case of the interconnector there is no advantage, in terms of integration of LUAS, metro and DART, (one of the main aims of the interconnector) to building it through St. Stephen's Green rather than through a more central location like College Green.

We know that there would also be no advantage to a longer, more expensive route through St. Stephen's Green, if you want to increase the DART capacity to 100 million passengers per annum (the other main aim of the interconnector).

What is this fixation that you and others on this board, but more particularly the Department of Transport, have with St. Stephen's Green?

An interconnector through St. Stephen's Green would be longer, would be more expensive, and would clearly be much less efficient at uptake and delivery of passengers.

Forgive me but, try as I might, I just can't get it.

Enough of this side discussion please. Move along.

Please read the rules here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055048043

Moderator

strassenwo!f

Victor is a committee member of Railusersireland, who have long campaigned for the interconnector to be built through St. Stephen's Green. One, in particular, of the officers of that group, has spent hours on end posting often and at length here about how the interconnector would go through St. Stephen's Green, and would thus connect with the LUAS.

The poster Murphaph, who you can see thanking Victor and who is or was a member of RailusersIreland, is on record on this board as saying that the interconnector should be built through St. Stephen's Green because it would be much better for the clients of Copper Face Jack's if they were near to the line, cos' a line at College Green would be miles away.

Is there a conflict of interest here?

Banjoxed

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Victor is a committee member of Railusersireland, who have long campaigned for the interconnector to be built through St. Stephen's Green. One, in particular, of the officers of that group, has spent hours on end posting often and at length here about how the interconnector would go through St. Stephen's Green, and would thus connect with the LUAS.

The poster Murphaph, who you can see thanking Victor and who is or was a member of RailusersIreland, is on record on this board as saying that the interconnector should be built through St. Stephen's Green because it would be much better for the clients of Copper Face Jack's if they were near to the line, cos' a line at College Green would be miles away.

Is there a conflict of interest here?

This is crap. Rail users Ireland is just that. A group made of wait for it, Rail users. You however want to get a big box of crayons out like every wannabe transport scheme vandal over the last forty years.

strassenwo!f

Banjoxed wrote: »

This is crap. Rail users Ireland is just that. A group made of wait for it, Rail users. You however want to get a big box of crayons out like every wannabe transport scheme vandal over the last forty years.

That's really not so. I believe that it will be a long time before these projects are built, so in the interim it is sensible to look at how they might be improved.

By the way, I wish to make it clear that I believe Victor to be the most honorable of men.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The poster Murphaph, who you can see thanking Victor and who is or was a member of RailusersIreland, is on record on this board as saying that the interconnector should be built through St. Stephen's Green because it would be much better for the clients of Copper Face Jack's if they were near to the line, cos' a line at College Green would be miles away.

Is there a conflict of interest here?

FFS. Do you know what a conflict of interests even is? I stand to neither lose nor gain, regardless of if/when/where the interconnector is built. I can just see the common bloody sense behind utilising a rare bit of green space to construct a large interchange station. You can't, that's fine, but don't dare call my ethics into question please.

[Jackass]

Relax lads, it's grand. They're going to set up a couple of new bus routes for 650 million. But don't worry, they have platforms.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/rapid-bus-scheme-for-dublin-could-cut-journey-times-by-40-1.1676911

irishmover

[Jackass] wrote: »

Relax lads, it's grand. They're going to set up a couple of new bus routes for 650 million. But don't worry, they have platforms.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/rapid-bus-scheme-for-dublin-could-cut-journey-times-by-40-1.1676911

Live in Brisbane and they have this. Underground stations in the city aswell. Cuts out a lot of traffic. So not sure if you're serious in your post or ridiculing the idea but it's a very good idea so you should hope it happens to be honest.

KCAccidental

the busway in Brisbane is a mile away from what is being proposed here!

TheBandicoot

Doesn't really have anything to do with DU. BRT is important as another high quality route, but ultimately DU will have to be built to tie all the routes as a backbone and open up more journey possibilities.

monument

C&T BRT thread http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057010435/3/#post88811807

irishmover

KCAccidental wrote: »

the busway in Brisbane is a mile away from what is being proposed here!

In size yes. In method no.

It will cut a decent amount of traffic out.

Who wouldn't want a much faster and direct bus route to each of these places?


Does this not look familiar? It's a BRT But the one in Brisbane has come ok a long way since initial construction. Whose to say the same can't happen in Dublin. So a mile away? Not a chance.

Edit: Just seen a thread on this already. Will drop the discussion here

Aard

The proposed BRT and Dart Underground have almost no overlap, so could all BRT-related discussion please be held here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057010435

Mod.

strassenwo!f

The interconnector is a great idea. A line right through the citty centre.

The city now needs to work on how it can be as effective as posible. Obviously the route to/from Tallaght/Clondalkin has been squandered by bad planning, which is a pity, as it would have connected the two biggest urban areas in the county.

But there are other possibilites, north of the Hazelhatch line, which could still make this a very viable route.

TheBandicoot

Metro West is the real option, not the spurs off the Heuston line that you have described as wanting. It will interchange with the DART network at two locations and thus feed the tunnel.

strassenwo!f

TheBandicoot wrote:

Metro West is the real option, not the spurs off the Heuston line that you have described as wanting. It will interchange with the DART network at two locations and thus feed the tunnel.

Can you not see the sense in utilising the enormous capacity of the tunnel to provide a direct service between several West Dublin suburbs and the city? One of the main cities which Dublin looked at was Porto, and they have spurs off the main line to provide such direct services. Several other cities do this - Munich, Frankfurt, London, etc. This metrowest idea of bringing people around a city before you've dealt with the issue of getting them into it is very much a minority sport.

In Frankfurt, for example, you get on an S-Bahn and you're going into (or out of) the city. If you want to go somewhere else, you have to change. And that's what suits most people. In Dublin, with the metrowest, they've got it back to front: if you get on a metrowest tram you're going around the city, and if you want to get into the city then you have to change.

It costs a bit more money to do it the way most other cities have done it. But if the Dublin way was the right way then a whole heap of other cities would have something akin to the metrowest. And the majority don't.

GerardKeating

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It costs a bit more money to do it the way most other cities have done it. But if the Dublin way was the right way then a whole heap of other cities would have something akin to the metrowest. And the majority don't.

The Metro West (and Metro North) Route should be Full DART, from Tallaght to the Airport, with suitable connections to allow through running from the line into town via either Kildare or Maynooth Lines.

You could even allow Sligo trains to run from Hueston if one wanted.

Cool Mo D

I think Strassenwolf is right about DART spurs being a better idea than metro west. Firstly, DART spurs would be more likely to take people where they want to go: the city centre, while still linking west Dublin, even if it is indirectly.
Secondaly, after DART underground there'd be a 4-track railway leading into a high-capacity DART tunnel with lots of capacity to be filled - a perfect situation for adding spurs.

There is definitely space for some simple spurs - to Celbridge, Naas, and Clondalkin village. And if you cut and cover under parkland, you could serve places like Lucan (via Griffeen Valley park).

murphaph

I'd support the idea of Naas being reconnected but not the others.

L1011

Celbridge should have its planning completely and utterly restricted to forbid even one more one-off house, estate, office or retail development to be built in the direction of Maynooth or Clane until it has actually reached its existing train station - and that should have happened when they first planned re-opening it at that.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

I'd support the idea of Naas being reconnected but not the others.

Let's connect a town in County Kildare directly to the interconnector, and maybe build up higher density along the route to support it; Let's not attempt to do the same thing in County Dublin.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Let's connect a town in County Kildare directly to the interconnector, and maybe build up higher density along the route to support it; Let's not attempt to do the same thing in County Dublin.

You are making assumptions now.

I support the Metro West concept of feeding the interconnector inside the Dublin county boundary. I get to work by taking an orbital train and then changing to a radial one. It works! There's more than one way to skin a cat!

Sierra Oscar

I remember reading that some of the enabling works for the DART Underground will be carried out during the construction of Luas Cross City, but I can't find any information on this now.

Anyone have further information, is this actually occurring?

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

You are making assumptions now.

I'm afraid I can only work with what you say on the board, and you said above that you'd support a new, direct link between a town (Naas) in County Kildare and the city centre, but would be against any new, direct links between suburbs in West Dublin and the city centre. What assumptions am I making?

murphaph wrote: »

I support the Metro West concept of feeding the interconnector inside the Dublin county boundary. I get to work by taking an orbital train and then changing to a radial one. It works! There's more than one way to skin a cat!

Berlin is hardly a good model for what Dublin needs to do. Firstly, the properly built-up area of the city is much greater in population and area than Dublin. Secondly, it spent several decades developing two separate rail networks which, in reality, are still being incorporated into each other. The orbital rail line in Berlin makes a lot of sense as part of this incorporation process.

We all know that it is possible to do what you do on your way to and from work, i.e. travel on an orbital route and then a radial route to the centre. But cities which are smaller than Berlin and do not have its unique public transport history, like Porto or Frankfurt, with spurs from a main line to serve several routes and connect several suburbs directly with the city centre, surely represent more what Dublin needs to be doing at this stage.

strassenwo!f

And, from what I have seen of Berlin's orbital route it is largely elevated, and is a train, rather than operating a lot like a tram. No road crossings, that I remember.

From what we've had on this thread of, for example, metrowest trams "threading" their way through the streets of Clondalkin, on their way to and from Tallaght, we may be talking about different levels of service.

Are we comparing like with like, on a person's journey to or from work?

murphaph

I'm not getting drawn into an endless debate. Naas used to be directly connected by the way. I think metro west is a good choice for Dublin and a good way to feed from tallaght and clondalkin into the interconnector. Metro west will have high levels of segregation along the lines of the red line as far in as James's. That's perfectly adequate and if it's massively successful they can upgrade it gradually and add grade separation as required.

Your option requires full grade separation from day one. Different approach. More expensive probably.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not getting drawn into an endless debate. Naas used to be directly connected by the way. I think metro west is a good choice for Dublin and a good way to feed from tallaght and clondalkin into the interconnector. Metro west will have high levels of segregation along the lines of the red line as far in as James's. That's perfectly adequate and if it's massively successful they can upgrade it gradually and add grade separation as required.

Your option requires full grade separation from day one. Different approach. More expensive probably.

Ditto, I'm not interested in an endless debate about a project which has got be many years away from happening. I just do want to make a couple of points,

There is a lot of capacity in the proposed interconnector. Unfortunately, it appears that it would be difficult, for a number of reasons, to use some of this to serve the Clondalkin-Tallaght bit With other areas of West Dublin there may not be such barriers.

Building the metrowest, as it is currently proposed, most probably means building pretty much most of it - at least if it is to have serious usefulness as an orbital route.

Upgrading it to eventually take account of the fact that the dominant demand in West Dublin is to get into the city, rather than around the city, then requires longer stations, building new bridges over junctions, and probably most importantly a gauge change. This would be colossal interference on a line which is being upgraded because it's successful.

It would be much better, in my opinion, to build the huge-capacity interconnector with a coherent plan to build spurs, and gradually providing a better service for various western suburbs via extensions.

Aard

Infrastructural capactiy is not the same as operational capacity. Increasing the number of trains to the maximum infrastructural capacity of the interconnector may increase pax but it also hugely increases operational costs. The literature on network configuration generally advises against the multiple-branch model (i.e. spurs to Tallaght and Clondalkin) and in favour of the network model (i.e. Interconnector + MW). The network (or mesh/grid) model generally leads to greater take-up of public transport over branches.

Copyerselveson

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Upgrading it to eventually take account of the fact that the dominant demand in West Dublin is to get into the city, rather than around the city, then requires longer stations, building new bridges over junctions, and probably most importantly a gauge change. This would be colossal interference on a line which is being upgraded because it's successful.

It would be much better, in my opinion, to build the huge-capacity interconnector with a coherent plan to build spurs, and gradually providing a better service for various western suburbs via extensions.

I'm inclined to agree regarding the spurs, indeed I would build a spur from the GSWR mainline through Celbridge and onto Leixlip to not only provide a direct rail link into Celbridge itself but to also re-route Sligo mainline trains into Heuston and the Interconnector rather than Connolly.

But why change the gauge? There is unlikely to be any direct trains between Ireland, GB and the continent until we will be wearing tinfoil suits and whizzing around in flying cars like the Jetsons used to.

GerardKeating

Copyerselveson wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree regarding the spurs, indeed I would build a spur from the GSWR mainline through Celbridge and onto Leixlip to not only provide a direct rail link into Celbridge itself but to also re-route Sligo mainline trains into Heuston and the Interconnector rather than Connolly.

But why change the gauge? There is unlikely to be any direct trains between Ireland, GB and the continent until we will be wearing tinfoil suits and whizzing around in flying cars like the Jetsons used to.

Only reason for a reGauge would be to link to Metro North maybe.

I would like to see Metro North/South Built to a full DART standard (when we win the Lotto) to run from the Northern Line at/near Rush to Tallaght, and maybe the interconnector branch off this rather than bother with Spenser Dock, if someone will give me the crayons for a year or so.

And we would have the spur from the Kildare line, to go from the end of Metro South, to the Maynooth Line via Liffey Valley Centre and the Blanchardstown SC, and on to the various Ind Estate /Business park there.

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

Infrastructural capactiy is not the same as operational capacity. Increasing the number of trains to the maximum infrastructural capacity of the interconnector may increase pax but it also hugely increases operational costs. The literature on network configuration generally advises against the multiple-branch model (i.e. spurs to Tallaght and Clondalkin) and in favour of the network model (i.e. Interconnector + MW). The network (or mesh/grid) model generally leads to greater take-up of public transport over branches.

You probably don't want or need to go to the extent of a city like Munich when it comes to branching, though that city does have one of Europe's most effective underground networks and manages to cover a whole urban area with just four lines. But there are many cities with branched lines and generally those lines work well. Dublin is not a megalopolis.

Schadenfreudia

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I remember reading that some of the enabling works for the DART Underground will be carried out during the construction of Luas Cross City, but I can't find any information on this now.

Anyone have further information, is this actually occurring?

There is an "box" being constructed somewhere under the Rotunda Hospital.

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You probably don't want or need to go to the extent of a city like Munich when it comes to branching, though that city does have one of Europe's most effective underground networks and manages to cover a whole urban area with just four lines. But there are many cities with branched lines and generally those lines work well. Dublin is not a megalopolis.

You're confusing several debates. There's infrastructure design, infrastructure capacity, operational capacity, projected passenger numbers, projected development, network design, and of course the fact that MW is more than just a feeder service to DU and the city centre.

"Dublin is not a megalopolis" is not an argument imo. It's not as simple as saying there's one way of doing things for large cities and another way for small cities.