Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

DART+ (DART Expansion)

1…6263656768…231

Comments

  • #3202
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Does this affect hundreds of thousands of people every day? Dublin's gross infrastructure deficits do.
    No, but it affects a proportional amount of people.

    If New Ross was the size of Dublin and had Dublin related issues, we wouldn't be building a 4 lane dual carraigeway bypass with one roundabout junction on it


  • #3203
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    marno21 wrote: »
    If New Ross was the size of Dublin and had Dublin related issues, we wouldn't be building a 4 lane dual carraigeway bypass with one roundabout junction on it

    What?!?


  • #3204
    tharlear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    I think the point here is about priority. Is the development of this section of the national motorway network of greater or lesser importance than DART underground? It might be, the problem in Ireland is there is no debate, no prioritisation, and that's deeply unsatisfying for a great many of us here

    Agreed, because of the refusal of every government to stick to any long term national development plan for roads and rail, rather than pet projects of a particular minister, we have a patchwork. Each project is isolate from the whole.

    A plan is put in place, its starts and the next shower in power have to reinvent it
    DU is important and vital for PT in Dublin, it's a key step in producing a coherent PT system in Dublin, which should easy congestion. M17/M18 is also the first step in producing a national motorway system. All the other motorways lead to Dublin and increase congestion. The priority given will generally depend on where your looking from.

    If one looks at the building of the motorways over the last 15 years it be mainly from Dublin out. In general the further the piece of road from Dublin is the newer it is. I have no issue with this, is was a reasonable way to proceed, but to suggest that we don't need to complete the system by connecting other parts of the county is short sighted.


  • #3205
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,312 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    tharlear wrote: »
    Agreed, because of the refusal of every government to stick to any long term national development plan for roads and rail, rather than pet projects of a particular minister, we have a patchwork. Each project is isolate from the whole.

    A plan is put in place, its starts and the next shower in power have to reinvent it
    DU is important and vital for PT in Dublin, it's a key step in producing a coherent PT system in Dublin, which should easy congestion. M17/M18 is also the first step in producing a national motorway system. All the other motorways lead to Dublin and increase congestion. The priority given will generally depend on where your looking from.

    If one looks at the building of the motorways over the last 15 years it be mainly from Dublin out. In general the further the piece of road from Dublin is the newer it is. I have no issue with this, is was a reasonable way to proceed, but to suggest that we don't need to complete the system by connecting other parts of the county is short sighted.

    Even within the development of the motorway network, there are issues. We are currently on our way to completing a motorway between our 3rd and 4th cities, yet the road between our 2nd and 3rd cities is poor. (M20 off the radar.)

    You have alluded to the issue. No plan stays in place and in general, there is no actual plan. Ultimately its based on parish pump politics.


  • #3206
    tharlear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    Grandeeod said

    You have alluded to the issue. No plan stays in place and in general, there is no actual plan. Ultimately its based on parish pump politics.
    Unfortunately that's the reality, and because it parish pump you end up with "Western rail corridor" and some fool wanting to extent it.
    From schools to hospitals, roads, rail, housing, there is no plan.
    For what ever reason we do not do planning in Ireland. Irish people outside of Ireland appear to have no problem with planning.
    The one thing that has come out of the last 20 years is the beginning of a motorway system. I for one would like to see it finished. m17/18 m20 etc. Then maybe we can brush off the 1970 dart plan, the 80's, 90's, 00's plans for Dublin PT and actually do something that will not be at its capacity within a few years of opening. Not sure we need another plan, committee, review board, panel, experts, quango, etc.
    Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode about renting a car. They make the plans, but they don't implement the plans, and the at the most important part.


  • #3207
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,675 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Lets be clear here - we have plenty of smart experts who work for the relevant agencies like NTA/TII who do know the right decisions, and I don't think the failings of infrastructure planning are anything close to being an innate trait of the Irish people. I believe the problem lies entirely within the Irish political class, how Irish politics is organized, and why politicians strive for power. That whole system is ****ed, and it only ever serves to turn progress into the speed of pitch.


  • #3208
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Lets be clear here - we have plenty of smart experts who work for the relevant agencies like NTA/TII who do know the right decisions, and I don't think the failings of infrastructure planning are anything close to being an innate trait of the Irish people. I believe the problem lies entirely within the Irish political class, how Irish politics is organized, and why politicians strive for power. That whole system is ****ed, and it only ever serves to turn progress into the speed of pitch.

    I think Berties inability to build a Bertie-bowl demonstrates your point perfectly. Country was booming, plenty of money in government coffers, Bertie is in charge and he wants a stadium built. And? It didn't happen. Never got off the ground.

    If a project like that can't get up and running when we have the money and the political will, what hope have underground rail and childrens hospitals?


  • #3209
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,871 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    syklops wrote:
    I think Berties inability to build a Bertie-bowl demonstrates your point perfectly. Country was booming, plenty of money in government coffers, Bertie is in charge and he wants a stadium built. And? It didn't happen. Never got off the ground.

    A good thing ???
    We've a funny atitude to public infrastructure, eg motorways.. for a long time there was a need for them,but not many and no real plan... then we started getting motorways, yeah, still no plan though.. once its started motorways are expected to be built everywhere.... do we need the waterford to dublin motorway.... a motorway from galway to tuam... an expensive cork limerick motorway plan... pity we didnt have a plan

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #3210
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Markcheese wrote: »
    A good thing ???
    We've a funny atitude to public infrastructure, eg motorways.. for a long time there was a need for them,but not many and no real plan... then we started getting motorways, yeah, still no plan though.. once its started motorways are expected to be built everywhere.... do we need the waterford to dublin motorway.... a motorway from galway to tuam... an expensive cork limerick motorway plan... pity we didnt have a plan

    Where did you see me say it was a good thing?


  • Advertisement
  • #3211
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Markcheese wrote: »
    A good thing ???
    We've a funny atitude to public infrastructure, eg motorways.. for a long time there was a need for them,but not many and no real plan... then we started getting motorways, yeah, still no plan though.. once its started motorways are expected to be built everywhere.... do we need the waterford to dublin motorway.... a motorway from galway to tuam... an expensive cork limerick motorway plan... pity we didnt have a plan

    Our sense of "priority" as a state is completely dysfunctional, and at the mercy of career politicians and horse trading local interests. 1,000 km of pristine motorway, much of it quite empty and being subsidised, and more on the way. Gort-Tuam to be subsidised by us the taxpayer for 30 years. Yet not a jot of progress on a Dublin underground line amidst the return of boomtime scale daily gridlock.

    Dysfunctional is the only word for this. We're still living under this warped De Valera delusion of idealistic rural self sufficiency which needs to end if we are seriously about proper urban investment and a functional, productive modern state.

    We need more of this kind of attitude actually impacting policy: State can't afford rural Ireland - Moran


  • #3212
    tharlear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    DLR wrote

    We need more of this kind of attitude actually impacting policy: State can't afford rural Ireland - Moran
    Under Mr Moran's plan, the State's future investment would be concentrated on the growth of regional cities - as opposed to the preservation of rural living. Calling for the recreation of Ireland as a 'global city', he laid out his plan.
    So unless your suggesting that "regional cities" means Dublin, Fingal and Dunlaoire then completing the national motorways system is what's needed. Or we could extend the western rail to cork.
    The main problem with Dublin is that developers used the spoke and wheel motorway system in Dublin to build lots of housing that are really only accessible by car. You can blame the rural TD all you want but it was Dublin city councilors who controller the development of Dublin and the suburban motorways that enriched Dublin developers.3 motorways out of Dublin would have been enough . M1 north, m4 west splitting once clear of Dublin, m11 south. Instead you have m1, m2 m3 m4 m7, n81 m11, all those people drive.
    Until Dublin's councilors change their priorities (and Backers), then DU and metro are always going to lose out to the next dual carriageway to the next new suburb.


  • #3213
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    tharlear wrote: »
    So unless your suggesting that "regional cities" means Dublin, Fingal and Dunlaoire then completing the national motorways system is what's needed. Or we could extend the western rail to cork.
    The main problem with Dublin is that developers used the spoke and wheel motorway system in Dublin to build lots of housing that are really only accessible by car. You can blame the rural TD all you want but it was Dublin city councilors who controller the development of Dublin and the suburban motorways that enriched Dublin developers.3 motorways out of Dublin would have been enough . M1 north, m4 west splitting once clear of Dublin, m11 south. Instead you have m1, m2 m3 m4 m7, n81 m11, all those people drive.
    Until Dublin's councilors change their priorities (and Backers), then DU and metro are always going to lose out to the next dual carriageway to the next new suburb.

    100% agree with all of this. The motorway system was created with zero intelligence and now we have to fork out for a massively expensive M17-M18-M20 because of it. You're quite right, all politicians who brought about this stupidity are to blame but the buck stops with central govt.


  • #3214
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    100% agree with all of this. The motorway system was created with zero intelligence and now we have to fork out for a massively expensive M17-M18-M20 because of it. You're quite right, all politicians who brought about this stupidity are to blame but the buck stops with central govt.

    How would we have avoided having to do the M17/18/20, with better planning?
    A different overall approach than spoke-and-wheel?


  • #3215
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,332 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    How would we have avoided having to do the M17/18/20, with better planning?
    A different overall approach than spoke-and-wheel?

    M20 wise:

    Combined motorway for Cork/Limerick that would have used one road from Dublin until much, much further along - the feeders for Cork/Limerick would have acted as the M20.

    M18 is still fairly needed at least as DC, M17 could have been heavily reduced in scale.

    As goes other roads:

    M9/M11 could have been built combined for a considerable distance *or* just widened/bypassed the difficult bits of the N11 and built an M30/M25 for much the same access to Waterford, bypass of New Ross etc.

    N4/N5 could yet have some changes to reduce duplication but that's still far off.

    There was far too much slavish adherence to replacing the existing N routes with motorways rather than building a motorway network.


  • #3216
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: can we keep this to DU. Start a new thread if you want to discuss non DU stuff, like our infrastructure planning (or lack of) and the decision to build motorways when DC would have done.


  • Advertisement
  • #3217
    annfield1978
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 572 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    Reuben1210 wrote: »
    What is the source? do you have a link?


    No source, tender documents were issued at part of a NTA framework call off.


  • #3218
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    I understand the city now has actual plans to pedestrianise College Green.


  • #3219
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    I understand the city now has actual plans to pedestrianise College Green.
    Yup and as you well know we've an entire thread on this very subject

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055854451


  • #3220
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Yup and as you well know we've an entire thread on this very subject

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055854451

    Yes, thanks, I'm aware of the thread. But that's really about the pedestrianisation per se, whereas I'd be more interested in the public transport possibilities it might open up, hence the post in this thread.


  • #3221
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,675 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    It doesn't open up any new possibilities, it just makes things like DU more critical.


  • Advertisement
  • #3222
    McAlban
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 409 ✭✭McAlban


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, I'm aware of the thread. But that's really about the pedestrianisation per se, whereas I'd be more interested in the public transport possibilities it might open up, hence the post in this thread.

    Do you mean like an Underground station or the like??

    Tell me more


  • #3223
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: Strassenwolf take warning. Do not try to take this thread off topic again. A thread exists for Pedestrianisation. A thread was started for your pet subject - College Green. Post there if you wish to discuss it, not here.


  • #3224
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Less warning more banning. We're at that stage now.

    For now, don't feed the troll.


  • #3225
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Less warning more banning. We're at that stage now.

    For now, don't feed the troll.

    Mod: Do not back seat mod or you will see how the bans work out.

    Action was already taken.


  • #3226
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭plodder


    Controversial €3bn Dart back on table

    Silly season filler, or genuine ?


  • #3227
    prunudo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭prunudo


    plodder wrote: »
    Controversial €3bn Dart back on table

    Silly season filler, or genuine ?

    Was just reading that article, if there was every a reason to take these major infrastructure projects away from political inference this is it, less than a year since one minister cancels the next one wants it back.


  • #3228
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    jvan wrote: »
    Was just reading that article, if there was every a reason to take these major infrastructure projects away from political inference this is it, less than a year since one minister cancels the next one wants it back.

    The minister that cancelled it last year is now in charge of expenditure. How do you think that will work out?


  • #3229
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭plodder


    jvan wrote: »
    Was just reading that article, if there was every a reason to take these major infrastructure projects away from political inference this is it, less than a year since one politician cancels the next one wants it back.
    Can't say I agree with that. You have to make the political case that the 3 billion should be spent on DU. Up to now, that hasn't been successful.


  • #3230
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    plodder wrote: »
    Can't say I agree with that. You have to make the political case that the 3 billion should be spent on DU. Up to now, that hasn't been successful.

    Can't say I agree with that. You have to make the political case that the 3 billion should be spent on DU. Up to now, that hasn't been successful accepted.

    The political response has been more with the cost and the lack of funds - not the need.


  • #3231
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭plodder


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The political response has been more with the cost and the lack of funds - not the need.
    Not sure about that. I'll confess that I'm selfishly in favour of Metro North as it'll be of more benefit to me, but objectively DU is more strategic and more important. Extending the DART to Balbriggan (which I might benefit from indirectly) is even less strategic and pure pork barrel.

    To our pols, DU still sounds like a rail link between Heuston and the city centre. The full potential just doesn't register with them. Maybe it does with the new minister.


  • Advertisement
  • #3232
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    plodder wrote: »
    Not sure about that. I'll confess that I'm selfishly in favour of Metro North as it'll be of more benefit to me, but objectively DU is more strategic and more important. Extending the DART to Balbriggan (which I might benefit from indirectly) is even less strategic and pure pork barrel.

    To our pols, DU still sounds like a rail link between Heuston and the city centre. The full potential just doesn't register with them. Maybe it does with the new minister.

    To me, the value of DU is enhanced by the addition of the Clongriffin spur, MN adds very important public transport to the north side of the city. The Clongriffin spur allows DU to provide direct connection between the airport (25 million passengers per year) and the full rail network. MN allows the workers at the airport (25,000 direct and indirect) to get to work - these go to work more than 200 times a year each way. That is workers make 10 million journey per year. MN would suit workers, Clongriffin would suit passengers. (IMHO)

    Currently the only options are bus, coach, taxi and cars. Passenger numbers on each mode is about :-
    Dart/train = 2,000, Metro = 1,000, tram = 260; bus = 70, coach = 60, taxi = 4, car = 4.


  • #3233
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,866 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    plodder wrote: »
    Not sure about that. I'll confess that I'm selfishly in favour of Metro North as it'll be of more benefit to me, but objectively DU is more strategic and more important. Extending the DART to Balbriggan (which I might benefit from indirectly) is even less strategic and pure pork barrel.

    To our pols, DU still sounds like a rail link between Heuston and the city centre. The full potential just doesn't register with them. Maybe it does with the new minister.

    DARTu will mean better rail services, across all of Ireland. The capacity gains would be massive. TDs from all regions should support this.


  • #3234
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,866 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    To me, the value of DU is enhanced by the addition of the Clongriffin spur, MN adds very important public transport to the north side of the city. The Clongriffin spur allows DU to provide direct connection between the airport (25 million passengers per year) and the full rail network. MN allows the workers at the airport (25,000 direct and indirect) to get to work - these go to work more than 200 times a year each way. That is workers make 10 million journey per year. MN would suit workers, Clongriffin would suit passengers. (IMHO)

    That depends on where passengers are going to/coming from. For people travelling to Dublin City Centre metro would be best. for those travelling elsewhere DART to one of the mainline stations.

    In my opinion a better project would be to move the Belfast line, between Drogheda and Dublin, inland to serve the airport and continue via a tunnel to liffey junstion and under the park to Heuston, extend Heuston down to platform 10 and run direct Belfast-Dub Airport-Heuston-Lmrk Jnct-Cork services and then just have the existing Drogheda-Dublin for DARTs and you avoid having to build the airport spur and four tracking the existing line.


  • #3235
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    cgcsb wrote: »
    That depends on where passengers are going to/coming from. For people travelling to Dublin City Centre metro would be best. for those travelling elsewhere DART to one of the mainline stations.

    In my opinion a better project would be to move the Belfast line, between Drogheda and Dublin, inland to serve the airport and continue via a tunnel to liffey junstion and under the park to Heuston, extend Heuston down to platform 10 and run direct Belfast-Dub Airport-Heuston-Lmrk Jnct-Cork services and then just have the existing Drogheda-Dublin for DARTs and you avoid having to build the airport spur and four tracking the existing line.

    True but the spur is nothing like the cost of the new mainline to Liffey Junction. Would the existing PPT infrastructure work for that? What would that cost vs the cost DU and the Clongriffin spur?

    As a passenger, the spur and DU would suffice for most people going to CC or elsewhere Airport - Connolly/Luas or Airport - Pearse/SSG/Heuston. Workers would be much better served by Metro - Swords to Dublin CC.

    Anyway, nothing is going to happen any time soon.


  • #3236
    Noel Numerous Witch
    Posts: 0 ✭ Noel Numerous Witch


    Strategically speaking, financially speaking, politically speaking we are in an almost-perfect climate to invest in long term capital projects and infrastructure. (infrastructure deficit, long term debt servicing cost minimal, economy growing whilst medium term outlook is unsettled, opportunities to attract a certain potential Non-EU member's FDI to setup here, a construction sector that hasn't got fully back into gear yet - it's almost a perfect storm!).

    If DART underground is ever to make sense, then the time is right for it now. Same applies to a whole host of other infrastructure upgrades. I hope that the dust gets blown off a whole host of shelved plans and we start to get to work on the necessary upgrades for Ireland to bring up to speed with the modern world and beyond!


  • #3237
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,866 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    True but the spur is nothing like the cost of the new mainline to Liffey Junction. Would the existing PPT infrastructure work for that? What would that cost vs the cost DU and the Clongriffin spur?

    PPT would need some upgrade I'd imagine. It'd cost more than the airport spur but probably less than the airport spur+ CPOing some of Ireland's most expensive coastal properties for a 4 track system.


  • #3238
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Its good to keep Dart Underground on the radar, but that's really all this amounts to. The Irish state remains fixated on rural motorways.


  • #3239
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,866 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I see connecting rural south Wexford and Waterford with motorway is now of the highest importance, even an intercity motorway between Limerick and Cork is secondary.


  • #3240
    nowecant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 332 ✭✭nowecant


    Can anyone tell me was Dart Underground meant to be able to accommodate Intercity trains?

    e.g. Belfast - Dublin Docklands - Heuston - Cork

    Also, as planning has lapsed is there any way that it can be fast tracked the second time if it was decided to go ahead with it?

    Thanks


  • Advertisement
  • #3241
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,312 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    nowecant wrote: »
    Can anyone tell me was Dart Underground meant to be able to accommodate Intercity trains?

    e.g. Belfast - Dublin Docklands - Heuston - Cork

    Also, as planning has lapsed is there any way that it can be fast tracked the second time if it was decided to go ahead with it?

    Thanks

    No and No.


  • #3242
    KCAccidental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭KCAccidental


    probably would add to the cost to make the tunnel suitable for Diesel trains no?


  • #3243
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,312 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    KCAccidental wrote: »
    probably would add to the cost to make the tunnel suitable for Diesel trains no?

    As far as I knew, it was suitable for diesel trains, (commuter) but not for IC trains, for different reasons. But it wasn't planned to run Diesel trains via the tunnel anyway.


  • #3244
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    In answer to nowecant's question, there was some mention in our earlier discussion of this important project about an Irish Rail plan to electrify most (or perhaps all) of the mainline tracks in Ireland to accomodate Intercity trains in the tunnel.

    I've no source for any official document for this idea.


  • #3245
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    No and No.

    There appears to have been a plan to run intercity trains through the tunnel. That plan would hardly have emerged if it wasn't possible.

    While I agree that there could be, based on what we've seen in other cities, room to accomodate such traffic, perhaps at night, the volumes are overall quite small and much more could be done by looking at the possibilties of introducing spurs from the proposed tunnel and its associated Western line toward Western areas of the population who would be using this tunnel twice a day and five days a week, rather than providing a slightly better service for people who certainly would use it much less regularly.

    I think what Grandeeod probably meant to say, instead of 'no and no', was 'yes' and 'who knows'.

    I'd guess that's probably what he meant.


  • #3246
    nowecant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 332 ✭✭nowecant


    Ok, well here is another question.

    If it has to go through the full planning process again, I believe it is likely with the same route will be used

    What would be cost implications to design the tunnel to take intercity trains? are we talking +10% or +100% ?

    I understand there would be issue with ventilation, and likely height but surely this would be of huge benefit to the network?


  • Advertisement
  • #3247
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Why would the same route be used?

    It had never appeared before the LUAS green line got stuck at St. Stephen's Green - thanks to Mammy O'Rourke. A main aim of the original plan was integration of all rail modes, and the only way to do that was by building a rather circuitous route via St. Stephen's Green.: the LUAS was nowhere else in what would broadly be termed the city centre. It had to go there.

    Now that the LUAS is going to other locations in the city centre, indeed most of the major locations in the city from North to South, there is no reason for the big loop. Much as proposed in the DRRTS proposal in 1975, a fairly straight route should now be possible.


  • #3248
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    nowecant wrote: »
    Ok, well here is another question.

    If it has to go through the full planning process again, I believe it is likely with the same route will be used

    What would be cost implications to design the tunnel to take intercity trains? are we talking +10% or +100% ?

    I understand there would be issue with ventilation, and likely height but surely this would be of huge benefit to the network?

    Power is the issue, not tunnel size. Its not feasible to run diesel trains through it. You'd need to fully electrify any service that wants access. The only electrified mainline in the country is the Dart line.


  • #3249
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,871 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    There are hybrid trains in europe that basically run on electric batteries in tunnels and diesel electric when out.. now i'm sure its not as simple as that... and obviously theres a cost but its possible..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #3250
    afatbollix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭afatbollix


    It should be a commuter tunnel only.

    In years to come they should build a inter city fast train line cork to Belfast but were years off that yet.


  • #3251
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,675 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I thought most of the point of DU was to segregate the DART from Intercity services?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement