DART Underground - Alternative Routes

strassenwo!f

There are moderators here who have posted images on this very thread. Maybe they could help me in my predicament?

strassenwo!f

I was kind of thinking the moderator Aard, the moderator of this forum, who made a contribution on behalf of the estate agents Sherry Fitzgerald, on page 3 of this thread. He's got to know the best way to upload images.

But if any other posters know the best way, maybe you could beat him to it.

Van.Bosch

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I was kind of thinking the moderator Aard, the moderator of this forum, who made a contribution on behalf of the estate agents Sherry Fitzgerald, on page 3 of this thread. He's got to know the best way to upload images.

But if any other posters know the best way, maybe you could beat him to it.

Why don't you PM him rather than hoping he sees your post? Or would that deprive you of an opportunity to imply things?

strassenwo!f

It certainly would. I'm still unconvinced that an estate agent's vision of the city is especially relevant when we are talking about moving masses of people.

Maybe one of your thankers, Murphaph, who specificically asked for this to be posted on the board, might be persuaded. He's read my recent pleas, he's posted images on the board before, he's asked for this image.

murphaph

If you are computer literate enough to create the image and post on these forums including copious use of the quoting, italicising and bolding functions, then you are more than capable of finding out how to add an image to a post.

Victor

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I was kind of thinking the moderator Aard, the moderator of this forum, who made a contribution on behalf of the estate agents Sherry Fitzgerald, on page 3 of this thread. He's got to know the best way to upload images.

But if any other posters know the best way, maybe you could beat him to it.

Trolling and snide remarks not welcome.

Moderator

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It certainly would. I'm still unconvinced that an estate agent's vision of the city is especially relevant when we are talking about moving masses of people.

Maybe one of your thankers, Murphaph, who specificically asked for this to be posted on the board, might be persuaded. He's read my recent pleas, he's posted images on the board before, he's asked for this image.

It is not your place to call into question who does or doesn't thank posts.

Take a week off.

Moderator

GerardKeating

This is CIE's Rail plan from the 70's, I many way I think this is "nicer" that the current DU plan

D.L.R.

GerardKeating wrote: »

This is CIE's Rail plan from the 70's, I many way I think this is "nicer" that the current DU plan

The dept of transport may as well be called the dept of perpetual map drawing.

murphaph

Interesting that they completely ignored the Harcourt Street alignment as part of that plan. Almost embarrassed perhaps to admit that closing it was a mistake.

GerardKeating

murphaph wrote: »

Interesting that they completely ignored the Harcourt Street alignment as part of that plan. Almost embarrassed perhaps to admit that closing it was a mistake.

Or incredibly foresight in leaving the alignment free for the Luas?

noelfirl

GerardKeating wrote: »

Or incredibly foresight in leaving the alignment free for the Luas?

Nah. Pretty sure an earlier or later iteration of that had Harcourt St. as a bus way. Probably more lucky that that didn't happen.

murphaph

I suspect Gerard was being sarcastic. They did indeed propose using a heavy rail alignment as a bloody busway.

GerardKeating

murphaph wrote: »

I suspect Gerard was being sarcastic. They did indeed propose using a heavy rail alignment as a bloody busway.

I was...

I do remember the version with the Busway.

strassenwo!f

The image below is an indication of how a College Green interchange might be done. Sorry that the image is so big.





The yellow bit would be the metro part of the station. I am intending to show here a section which would be about 100 metres long and 15-16 metres wide, to accomodate either an island platform or two side platforms (with escalators to the interconnector level and the concourse level).

The blue bit would be the interconnector, and the picture is intended to show a station section which is 125 metres long and 22-24 metres wide. I think this should be enough to allow the interconnector part to have a 'Spanish-style' arrangement with two side platforms and an island platform. College Green is a very busy area, and even if you don't actually need such an arrangement at the beginning of the interconnector's life, it might be useful to have it for the future.

The red bits are intended to show what might be concourse areas, with your ticket machines, shops, flower sellers, shoe shiners, etc. I've drawn two such areas, but it might just be more sensible to build it all as one.

L1011

More unbuildable crayons - the available space to gain access to mine your metro platforms is going to be too small. Foundations and an active Luas line in play

Just because you can squash some lines in a space doesn't mean it can be built

murphaph

Those station boxes abut the walls of several buildings of immense cultural importance and you've left absolutely no room to work with. You'd have to drive piles there to hold the ground beneath tge shallow foundations in place and you'd be driving those piles about 2 feet from the walls.

I don't believe that can be built without mining the hole lot and mining the stations out immediately makes the hole thing significantly more expensive than the cut and cover approach that is planned for St Stephen's Green.

Aard

Stephen's Green is 7 meters higher than College Green. College Green would have to contend with greater flood risk. In addition the tunnel would have to decend these 7 meters over a shorter distance from the relatively high Christchurch station.

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote:

Stephen's Green is 7 meters higher than College Green. College Green would have to contend with greater flood risk. In addition the tunnel would have to decend these 7 meters over a shorter distance from the relatively high Christchurch station.

Firstly, in relation to the flood risk.

The RPA designed the proposed O'Connell Bridge station, the one with the two big stations either side of the river, and with the platforms directly under the river. No word from them about flood risk at that location, which must be at the very bottom of the river valley. They presumably passed it by the Department of Transport before applying for a railway order, and it got over that hurdle without, as far as we know, any mention of flood risk. The railway order application then went before An Bord Pleanala, who approved it, and then the RPA announced that they were delighted to have received a railway order for the project.

What did we hear about flood risk at any of those stages?

As far as I'm aware, not a sausage.

If it wasn't a factor at O'Connell Bridge, it's very hard to see how it's going to be a factor at a (slightly) uphill location like College Green.

If you've got more information about the flood risk at that location, perhaps you'd share it with the board.

For the moment, it looks like a red herring.

The bit about the Christchurch station is also very questionable.

The highest point in the city centre is in Christchurch Place, to the south of the Cathedral. 13.5 metres above sea level, if I remember correctly. The location which is presently proposed for the interconnector station at Christchurch is on the north side of the Cathedral, where the surface is considerably lower, and on a significant slope.

(I've seen maps with the altitudes above sea level around that area, but I don't currently have access to one).

From our knowledge of that area, and the importance of the cathedral, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the surface at the top of the area of the proposed station is around 10 metres above sea level, but I am obviously open to being corrected by someone with the exact figures.

You probably don't want a concourse (for your ticket machines, etc.) in which the floor slopes down towards the river. Thus, I think it would also not be unreasonable to suggest that the eventual concourse which is built will have a floor at or around sea level (ie around the normal river level). The interconnector level would have a floor around 3-4 metres below that.

That should be comfortably able to reach an interconnector station at College Green which is just below the level of the main concourse in the picture above, without any serious gradient issues.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

Those station boxes abut the walls of several buildings of immense cultural importance and you've left absolutely no room to work with. You'd have to drive piles there to hold the ground beneath tge shallow foundations in place and you'd be driving those piles about 2 feet from the walls.

I don't believe that can be built without mining the hole lot and mining the stations out immediately makes the hole thing significantly more expensive than the cut and cover approach that is planned for St Stephen's Green.

Well, as I said above, the metro station would add to the cost. But, where are you getting your 'several' buildings of national importance? Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, as I said above, the metro station would add to the cost. But, where are you getting your 'several' buildings of national importance? Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

He said several buildings of immense cultural importance, not national importance.

There's at least 12-13 building which are protective structures, that's not to mention three monuments (which are likely movable, so are a mute points) and TCD's gates.

Red dots = protected structures:

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

What, precisely, do you mean by this?

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

He said several buildings of immense cultural importance, not national importance.

There's at least 12-13 building which are protective structures, that's not to mention three monuments (which are likely movable, so are a mute points) and TCD's gates.

Red dots = protected structures:

Yes Monument. I thought the RPA would try and build the metro as far as possible under roads. Like Grafton Street. The yellow bit on the image I posted above might have involved some tight turns for the metro if they had done that (heading north from St. Stephen's Green). But if you look at their plans, it seems they were planning to build their metro directly under quite a number of the protected buildings you show.

I still don't know why.

For example, there's an enormous amount of undeveloped space in the TCD Provost's garden which could be used for a metro station, with access to Nassau Street, Grafton Street, College Green, etc. without causing any major inconvenience.

And without going under any buildings of national importance.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, as I said above, the metro station would add to the cost. But, where are you getting your 'several' buildings of national importance? Did you have the same sums teacher as L1011?

So you accept you'd have to mine your proposed stations rather than use cut and cover as at St. Stephen's Green?

strassenwo!f

Sorry, cultural importance.

strassenwo!f

L1011 wrote: »

More unbuildable crayons - the available space to gain access to mine your metro platforms is going to be too small. Foundations and an active Luas line in play

Just because you can squash some lines in a space doesn't mean it can be built

Yes, of course, there'd be no squashing or squeezing at St. Stephen's Green, because you'd have a whole 22-acre park right beside the station to play with, a very large area with no commuters. And there'd be almost no disruption.

College Green, as far as I can see, would certainly involve considerable squashing and/or squeezing.

alias no.9

monument wrote: »

He said several buildings of immense cultural importance, not national importance.

There's at least 12-13 building which are protective structures, that's not to mention three monuments (which are likely movable, so are a mute points) and TCD's gates.

Red dots = protected structures:

Looks to me that Starbucks on the corner of Foster Place is the only structure on College Green without a red dot. It might give a more interesting view if the full footprint of protected structures were colour coded so you don't lose density as buildings get bigger.
That's going to be massively problematic for digging and that's before you give a passing thought to the utilities buried under the street, water, sewage, gas, electricity, phone, fiber optic, then there's the Luas which will pass through before any work on this would commence, not to mention the total disruption to most of the Dublin Bus network.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

a very large area with no commuters.

Unproven assertion. Again.

Your fantasyland costings for College Green are falling ever more in to hilarity now, as you finally admit that you'll need to mine the station boxes. Care to whack another eight figures in there?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

College Green, as far as I can see, would certainly involve considerable squashing and/or squeezing.

Yes, so much so that any sane person wouldn't bother drawing lines on a map and saying its buildable.

The engineering cost of *designing* a station at CG, as well as the time it'll take, is immense. That's before you even try build it.

murphaph

Strange how 20 acres of playing fields and squares in TCD doesn't seem to bother you.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes Monument. I thought the RPA would try and build the metro as far as possible under roads. Like Grafton Street. The yellow bit on the image I posted above might have involved some tight turns for the metro if they had done that (heading north from St. Stephen's Green). But if you look at their plans, it seems they were planning to build their metro directly under quite a number of the protected buildings you show.

I still don't know why.

Because you don't have a clue how these things are built. Metro North as planned can go under the protected buildings because it will be well under them.

Station boxes which are built by cut and cover are far different stories. Are you still claiming you could do full cut and cover on College Green without massive disruption?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

For example, there's an enormous amount of undeveloped space in the TCD Provost's garden which could be used for a metro station, with access to Nassau Street, Grafton Street, College Green, etc. without causing any major inconvenience.

And without going under any buildings of national importance.

How long is the space in the garden? How long were Metro North trams planned to be?

On what streets would be the exits be? Exactly where?

The answer to those questions are the answer to your question.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

Because you don't have a clue how these things are built. Metro North as planned can go under the protected buildings because it will be well under them.

Station boxes which are built by cut and cover are far different stories. Are you still claiming you could do full cut and cover on College Green without massive disruption?

I have never claimed that an interchange could be built at College Green without massive disruption. If you can show one place where I have done, please do so.

As far as I remember, I have said all along that the disruption involved in building an underground interchange at College Green would be massive. Just off the top of my head I'd imagine you'd have to close the LUAS link-up for at least 6 months, while you dig up what would be the metro station and the front of the interconnector part of the interchange.

You'd probably have to close the whole of College Green for at least two years to buses and other traffic.

The disruption would be massive, no question.

But, as discussed earlier in the thread, it seems that the end product would be better for the city, in terms of delivering passengers directly to where they want to go, and taking them home.

You could certainly built the interchange much more easily in St. Stephen's Green. Almost no disruption. But would the end product be anywhere near as good, in terms of delivery and uptake of passengers?

monument wrote: »

How long is the space in the garden? How long were Metro North trams planned to be?

On what streets would be the exits be? Exactly where?

The answer to those questions are the answer to your question.

I haven't given it a huge amount of thought because as far as I can see, the best location for the metro stop seems to be as shown in the above picture, between College Green and the junction of Westmoreland Street and College Street. You could fit in a metro station there quite comfortably. (it would probably be easier with an island platform)

I still can't grasp how the RPA came up with the O'Connell Bridge idea as a way of saving money, when you've got a pretty obvious location like that show in the above picture. How were they going to save money?