Interconnector aka DART underground

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby PVC King » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:15 pm

marmajam wrote:U C PeeVeeCee you've produced this expert's assessment without the knowledge that IE have already rebuilt the KIldare line bridges to take overhead lines.



But the wirescape has not been built; I have no issue which method they use but outside Spain where there seems to be a deviance from normal practice the norm seems to be a third rail fixed to the track bed. Examples include Hong Kong, Singapore Japan etc

It seems strange that if they were constructing additional tracks that they didn't electrify at the same time or at least put the structural steel in place; very short sighted when you consider the different funding environment that has now materialised. No doubt a little rezoning and development levy regime beyond Kilmainham will supply the revenue streams close to project completion; there is a lot of redundant industrial stock that if combined into a wider holding will provide the necessary scale to do something very orderly out there. A lot of season ticket holders who will want access in all directions
PVC King
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby SeamusOG » Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:09 am

PVC King wrote:Most underground systems use a 'third rail system' including London, Paris and Frankfurt as it reduces the size of the tunnel required and in this case would lead to a lot less rebuilding of existing route components. If you could stick to the points raised instead of resorting to immature personnal attacks people might actually read what you have said before they reject it.


On the contrary, Frankfurt uses overhead wires for both its S-Bahn and U-Bahn networks.
SeamusOG
Member
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:59 pm

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby PVC King » Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:57 am

Right you are on both; I knew S-Bahn was on overhead wires on the semi segregated street sections but never noticed the Frankfurt system to be much talller than any other sections. Taking the Channel tunnel which uses overhead wires it has a 7.6m tunnel diameter versus a more standard 6.2m using the third rail method

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/ffm/frankfrt.htm

It is an issue that is best left to electrical engineers to decide the merits of lower air-cooling costs versus the additional concrete required to accomodate the wirescape. What is of surprise is if there was a clear intention to go with this project why the structural steel required to carry the wires wasn't done as part of the track widening project.

That oversight aside which although short sighted is not fatal and the project has a very strong basis to proceed on the basis that it delivers a doubling of capacity on the existing Dart network, a lot of extra capacity on the Maynooth line / Pace extension and will both increase demand on the Kildarte line and free up a lot of capacity on the Luas red line from Heuston in.

One would wonder that taking the typical Kildare line commuter working in say Leeson Street if you gave them a choice between a train and Luas combination that leaves you in Abbey Street requiring a third leg via bus or walking and a car journey what would they chose.

Change that to an overground train to Heuston and then a DART to Stephens Green what are they going to choose?
PVC King
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:36 pm

PVC King wrote:But the wirescape has not been built; I have no issue which method they use but outside Spain where there seems to be a deviance from normal practice the norm seems to be a third rail fixed to the track bed. Examples include Hong Kong, Singapore Japan etc

It seems strange that if they were constructing additional tracks that they didn't electrify at the same time or at least put the structural steel in place; very short sighted when you consider the different funding environment that has now materialised. No doubt a little rezoning and development levy regime beyond Kilmainham will supply the revenue streams close to project completion; there is a lot of redundant industrial stock that if combined into a wider holding will provide the necessary scale to do something very orderly out there. A lot of season ticket holders who will want access in all directions


Tokyo and Hong Kong both use metro trains with overhead power lines.

Other major cities include New Delhi, Rome, Sydney, San Francisco, Cairo, Istanbul........
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby PVC King » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:14 pm

marmajam wrote:Tokyo and Hong Kong both use metro trains with overhead power lines.

Other major cities include New Delhi, Rome, Sydney, San Francisco, Cairo, Istanbul........



Tokyo uses a third rail at least on these networks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Marunouchi_Line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Ginza_Line

New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R142_(New_York_City_Subway_car)

Chicago

http://www.urbanrail.net/am/chic/chicago.htm

Whatever the power source the project stacks up at the level of costs identified unlike another project
PVC King
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby BluntGuy » Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:03 am

I've actually e-mailed IE and asked if they would ever consider a Third-Rail or Fourth-Rail system. While I doubt I'll get an adequate response, it'll be interesting to see what they say. I also asked them a lot of other questions about the project, including if the order for 432 new carriages was still going ahead, when the electrification will take place and what IE will do to ensure it is prioritized over MN.

I'd encourage other people to also e-mail them. It most likely ain't gonna change a lot, but at least they might put more information up on their rather spartan site.
BluntGuy
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:20 pm

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm

It seems the newer systems (worldwide) are using the overhead power lines.
I suspect the order (as distinct from the tender docs) for the 400+ Dart carriages will be held back until the contract for the IC is done or imminent.

I notice that the 'train spotter' congregation ar pretty fixated on the IC. They do love heavy rail :)

And while the IC will have a hugely radical effect on the DART system it doesn't actually service any new areas which is one of the main advantages of MN. Public transport, to get people out of their cars has to have a rail core to it. So MN with it's interlinking elements would be more important IMO.

As of now I'd be very confidant both will actually go ahead, in the short term.
I'm also not sure the remark in the IT that the DoF is opposed to MN accurately characterises their position. This is the opportunistic negative briefing they've been at for a long time. There is opposition in the DoF to MN, which is a different thing. And that opposition has always been there.
The cost to the exchequer of going ahead with both these projects will not be heavy ,relatively speaking, during construction. In fact due to the jobs created tax vat social security savings etc it is probably more expensive to cancel.
By the time they are opened the world economy will have recovered.
There are many other compelling reasons for going ahead with both projects.
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:50 pm

PVC King wrote:Tokyo uses a third rail at least on these networks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Marunouchi_Line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro_Ginza_Line

New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R142_(New_York_City_Subway_car)

Chicago

http://www.urbanrail.net/am/chic/chicago.htm

Whatever the power source the project stacks up at the level of costs identified unlike another project


so you've gone from asserting that every 'tube' system uses the 3rd rail to struggling to find a few examples in weird foreign Timbucktoos that still use it

That's a bit of a climbdown.......

what a chancer you are.

I suspect this is typical of the property development game which, let us not forget, is at the parasitic end of the spectrum of social behaviour
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby PVC King » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:27 pm

marmajam wrote:so you've gone from asserting that every 'tube' system uses the 3rd rail to struggling to find a few examples in weird foreign Timbucktoos that still use it

That's a bit of a climbdown.......

what a chancer you are.


New York and Chicago equate timbuktu which you are even unable to spell.

There was a great movie made in the late 1980's called Planes, Trains and Automobiles

I can just picture you as John Goodman complete with jam stains on paisley patterned polyester pyjamas
PVC King
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:42 pm

:)

Chicago is worse than Timbucktoo
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby Peter Fitz » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:19 am

marmajam wrote:And while the IC will have a hugely radical effect on the DART system it doesn't actually service any new areas which is one of the main advantages of MN. Public transport, to get people out of their cars has to have a rail core to it. So MN with it's interlinking elements would be more important IMO.


The interconnector will have a far greater impact on the entire city and its commuter belt than a single 'metro' line. It will finally break the blinkered vision of a single line transport axis that stunts its own potential by terminating at the city centre.

DART Underground will open up the western suburbs to the rest of the city and vice versa, connecting the far reaches of the west, north and south city suburbs via the city centre. In many ways it allows public transport to compete with and offer a viable alternative to the M50, as crudely attempted by the nonsense that was metro west.

New stations at Docklands, St. Stephen’s Green, Christ Church, Inchicore, Park West, Clondalkin, Kishogue, Adamstown - Two Dart lines, Hazlehatch to Balbriggan, Maynooth to Greystones, in excess of 60 stations across the city, multiple journeys possible; integrated, reliable public transport.

This project has been on the list long before the RPA and metro north came along, it should be constructed asap, and if it is a case of one or the other given current constraints, I know which one I’d pick.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:42 am

define 'single metro line'
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby ac1976 » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:44 pm

The following is the Position Statement of Inchicore on Track in regard Irish Rail Plan to extend the Dart Undergorund project to Inchicore from Heuston Station:


The Inchicore Railway Estate is a residential estate of approximately 240 homes, and is along with the
Inchicore Railway Works, a remarkable set piece of nineteenth century industrial planning and
vernacular architecture, which has survived largely intact, giving a strong sense of community and
belonging to the residents of the area. This area is of national importance in heritage and conservation
terms and in relation to the history of modern transport infrastructure in Ireland.





CIE Residents Association and Inchicore on Track

The CIE Residents Association is a long established organisation that represents the residents of the
Inchicore Railway Estate (also known as the CIE Estate).

On April 20th 2009 at the Hilton Hotel, Kilmainham, Irish Rail hosted a ‘public consultation’ as part of it’s
Dart Underground project, It was in this forum that it announced for the first time that it intended to apply
for a Railway Order in September, for a radical plan to tunnel from Heuston to Inchicore, that would
surface in a construction site in the middle of the Inchicore Railway Estate. In effect giving just over four
months notice on a project of national significance.

In response the CIE Residents Association held a public meeting one week later, on Monday April 27th
that was attended by in excess of 200 people and all the public representatives of the area. There was
a sense of outrage and shock at the extent, hastiness and impact of Irish Rail’s proposals. At this
meeting a call was made for volunteers to form a group to respond to the plan. Over 30 people came forward and the first meeting was held on Thursday April 30th at which “Inchicore on Track” was
adopted as the name of the group and John Beck of North Terrace was elected as chairperson.
Residents from nearby areas affected by the alignment of the proposed tunnel have also joined the group, including residents from Inchicore Road, Sarsfield Road, Woodfield and Murrays Cottages.

Inchicore on Track - Mission Statement

To campaign and lobby to ensure that the route alignment and portal position for the Dart Underground chosen by An Bord Pleanala west of Heuston Station has the
absolute minimum impact on residents and their homes while maintaining and preserving local communities, heritage and the environment.

Inchicore on Track requires that Irish Rail conduct an open and transparent consultation process that engages in a meaningful way with local communities.


Inchicore on Track Position Statement

The Inchicore Railway Estate

1. Inchicore on Track seeks the conservation, protection and enhancement of this unique place,
recognising it as a model of nineteenth century, sustainable development and urban planning
which has nourished a vibrant and close knit community. We support only those developments
and proposals that seek to sustain this into the future.

Integrated Public Transport

2. In recognition of the importance of integrated public transport, Inchicore on Track wants to see
the very best option chosen, one that promotes the greatest benefit and the least harm, an option in which the construction and operation of the Dart Underground would have the absolute minimum impact on heritage and the environment and the health, homes and lives of
residents.

The decision to consider the ‘Inchicore option’ was taken as recently as December 2008,
presented to the board of CIE in February 2009 and announced publicly in April 2009. We do
not believe that the period of time from late 2008 to April 2009 is sufficient for ALL the
alternatives to Heuston to have been examined. It appears that the only options examined were
those involving the use of land currently in the ownership of CIE. A project of such importance
should not be planned in such a hasty way.

Consultation Process

3. We require a serious and meaningful consultation process that is designed in conjunction with
local communities. We demand that Irish Rail recognises local communities and their
representative organisations, as stakeholders and partners in the environmental decision
making process and in any future developments in the area. We are dissatisfied with the partial,
drip feed of information and the burden put on residents to find out details of this project in a
painstaking and piecemeal fashion.

We demand that CIE and Irish Rail postpone their current target for a Railway Order application
until a real consultation process is established and all the options examined.

Alignment and Vent (Emergency Intervention Shaft)

4. The current proposed alignment is unacceptable because of the risk that is posed to people’s
homes, by tunnel boring works that are substantially closer to the ground level of properties
than is the case in any other part of the city. Most of these properties were built in the
nineteenth century and many have insubstantial foundations.

The position of the Emergency Intervention Shaft at Inchicore Road as part of this alignment is
unacceptable because we think the risk to homes and the disruption it would cause to people’s
lives, both during the construction and operational phases. We question the feasibility and
appropriateness of this location in a back garden in the event of an emergency or disaster
which may involve up to 1400 plus people. We request that Irish Rail give serious consideration
to other alternatives.

Portal and Construction Site

5. The current proposed location of the portal construction site in the heart of a residential area is
unacceptable because we think it would have an invasive, disruptive and detrimental impact on
the Inchicore Estate and the lives and health of its people during the construction and operational phases. A residential area is simply not suitable to host work of this scale and duration. This is compounded by the loss of amenities and green areas for local residents,
sports clubs and school. The quality of life of the residents would be severely compromised for
a period in excess of 5 years.

Station

6. The current proposed position of the station in the middle of an industrial complex is highly
questionable and would appear to be based on expedience and opportunism, rather than on
any audited or verifiable local transport requirements. It would be disconnected from Inchicore
village, would not provide sufficient public access and would most probably become a haven for
anti-social behaviour. We question whether it complies with internationally recognised best
practice for the provision of public transport.

We would support a station location in Inchicore that was chosen on the basis of local transport
needs and situated in such a way that it would not adversely affect the lives of local residents or
the existing dynamics of local communities,

Environmental Impact and Independent Advice

7. The environmental impact of this project is not known. We require that information relating to
the environmental impact assessment that is relevant to or touches upon our areas of concern
is passed on to Inchicore on Track as it becomes available.

We expect independent expert advice on technical aspects of the proposals such as the
alignment, the position of the portal and construction site, geology, tunnelling, railway engineering, the Heuston option, traffic management and other issues that might arise. The environmental impact statement should not issue, until such time as we have received this
advice and had the opportunity to participate in the assessment.

Funding for the Project/PPP and Future Development

8. We have grave concerns about the proposed funding for the project. The track record of the
use of public private partnerships to deliver major infrastructural projects in Ireland is mixed.
The current economic climate compounds the community’s anxiety around the deliverability of
such a project. Furthermore it is recognised that the failure of PPP’s has left real communities
in untenable situations for extended periods of time. We are aware that a successful Railway
Order application would give Irish Rail a ten- year window in which to commence the project.

We are concerned, given the current national economic and budgetary situation, that the community may have to live with an extended period of uncertainty and distress while awaiting the commencement of the project, should the Railway Order be granted. There is growing
recognition that the position and viability of the station only makes sense in the context of the
rezoning and development of the industrially zoned Works complex. That the provision of a station would be linked to a new PPP scheme to develop large portions of the Inchicore Railway Works or other lands in the ownership of CIE is extremely worrying. We require
assurance that this is not on CIE’s agenda.

Immediate and Ongoing Impact

9. The current proposal for the construction of the DART underground is already having a
detrimental impact on residents. In attempting to come to terms with the enormous impact of
this project, the huge information deficit and the urgent timeframe, very considerable time and
effort is being put in by residents in discussions, meetings and committees. Residents are
experiencing anxiety, stress, insecurity, invasion of their privacy and a negative impact on the
present value of their homes.

This situation could be significantly relieved by the immediate establishment of a formal and
effective consultation and participation process.
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:32 pm

there's a lot to be said for the Chinese way of doing things
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby cgcsb » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:07 pm

since the line to Maynooth will be electrified, do people think this would be a good time to open more stations on the line? For example one in the Phibsboro/Glasnevin area at prospect rd. and Croke Park (although the limited space would be an engineering challenge). Perhaps also at Kylemore road or Le Faneu rd. When you look at the current dart line there are alot of stations fairly close together should the new system not emulate this?
cgcsb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby Peter Fitz » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:21 pm

marmajam wrote:define 'single metro line'


Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen's Green seem slightly less crazy.

cgcsb wrote:since the line to Maynooth will be electrified, do people think this would be a good time to open more stations on the line? For example one in the Phibsboro/Glasnevin area at prospect rd. and Croke Park (although the limited space would be an engineering challenge). Perhaps also at Kylemore road or Le Faneu rd. When you look at the current dart line there are alot of stations fairly close together should the new system not emulate this?


Plenty of potential for further stations, i presume there will be many calls for same once people realise there is a dart line on their doorstep.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:01 pm

cgcsb wrote:since the line to Maynooth will be electrified, do people think this would be a good time to open more stations on the line? For example one in the Phibsboro/Glasnevin area at prospect rd. and Croke Park (although the limited space would be an engineering challenge). Perhaps also at Kylemore road or Le Faneu rd. When you look at the current dart line there are alot of stations fairly close together should the new system not emulate this?


there just isn't enough space at Croker but a very elegant solution is coming in the medium term.
a station will be built west of cross gun's bridge where the two lines are quite close (in between the 2 lines). this will enable interchange from any trains going into Docklands to the Connolly bound DARTs and will also serve as a station for Phibsboro (and Croke Pk)
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:08 pm

Peter Fitz wrote:Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen's Green seem slightly less crazy.


.


hmm, I see.
very very cunning.
So MN will tippytoe past Drumcondra so nobody spots it.
Then sneak past LUAS Red at O'Connell bridge to avoid having to collect any of the Tallaght-ban and,
viciously hide behind the trees in St Stephen's Green so none of the Goys on the Green line even dream there is a connection.

Brilliant, Fitzy, even a genius would be pushed to come up with that.
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby Frank Taylor » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:21 pm

ac1976 wrote:The following is the Position Statement of Inchicore on Track in regard Irish Rail Plan to extend the Dart Undergorund project to Inchicore from Heuston Station:

...The current proposed location of the portal construction site in the heart of a residential area is
unacceptable because we think it would have an invasive, disruptive and detrimental impact on
the Inchicore Estate and the lives and health of its people during the construction and operational phases. A residential area is simply not suitable to host work of this scale and duration. This is compounded by the loss of amenities and green areas for local residents,
sports clubs and school. The quality of life of the residents would be severely compromised for
a period in excess of 5 years.
This diagram of the inchicore station seems to show the tunnel entrance in the centre of the industrial estate.
http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/20A%20Proposed%20Layout%20of%20Completed%20Station%20at%20Inchicore.pdf

I would have thought it would be a great boon to inchicore to have a local dart station giving them a frequent fast link to the south city centre and along the bay to howth/malahide. I'd imagine IE's long term plan is to move all the industrial train sheds to portlaoise and construct a new town on site in a decade's time. Perhaps this is what you fear. I'd prefer to live next to a bustling suburban centre rather than a huge railway maintenance yard.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby cgcsb » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:40 pm

marmajam wrote:there just isn't enough space at Croker but a very elegant solution is coming in the medium term.
a station will be built west of cross gun's bridge where the two lines are quite close (in between the 2 lines). this will enable interchange from any trains going into Docklands to the Connolly bound DARTs and will also serve as a station for Phibsboro (and Croke Pk)


:eek: where have you obtained this information from. Yes I agree there's very little space at Croker but it is still technically possibe and having a station at the stadium will help reduce traffic in the area (considering not a single solitary bus route passes the stadium). Also imagine the revenue IÉ can get on match days $$$$$$$$$
cgcsb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:59 pm

cgcsb wrote::eek: where have you obtained this information from. Yes I agree there's very little space at Croker but it is still technically possibe and having a station at the stadium will help reduce traffic in the area (considering not a single solitary bus route passes the stadium). Also imagine the revenue IÉ can get on match days $$$$$$$$$



Saw a report that although it was feasible to build a station at Croker, there was the worry re safety/crowds with very limited space. They toyed with fitting one in further west between Croker and Phibsboro but the issue here was the roads were too narrow already without fitting a station entrance in. So the obvious answer was west of Gunn's Cross to straddle a point where the 2 lines were close - this is included as part of DCC'S development plan for Phibsboro.
anyway Drumcondra stn is very close to Croker and with a high frequency service and park and rides in Pace and Maynooth surely this will become the gateway to Croker for fans from the West and the NW.
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby PVC King » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:19 pm

Peter Fitz wrote:Its one of one, a standalone project that relies on the interconnector to make the fact that it terminates at Stephen's Green seem slightly less crazy.



Plenty of potential for further stations, i presume there will be many calls for same once people realise there is a dart line on their doorstep.


Totally agree

It is very recent angle being spun, lets milk the full potential of the interconnector derived new capacity to make a glorified Luas line seem like the central spine of the network.

If a passenger lived in Drumcondra and were offered a four stop solution to Stepens Green of Course they would use it; if the same passenger were offered an interchange at Spencer Dock to the airport of course they would use it.

The only difference between MN and Interconnector is that MN at a cost of c€2bn stops at DCU, Ballymun and Swords whereas full implementation of the 2003 IE Dublin rail plan element to the Airport would add €200-300m, to build a spur through Lissenhall to Swords extending Malahide Dart would add maybe €150m and on top of a higher capacity solution would give the same park and ride options as well as a route into the open country of North County Dublin.

What is the fixation with Metro North?

DCU Student population c8,000
Ballymun population less than 20,000

You need at least five stations on 10m p.a.x. or else 50-60 stations to make a €2bn expenditure stack up; look at the Port tunnel it cost €800m and took virtually all HGV's ouut of the city centre. The top slice of this project of at least €1,550m serves 8,000 students, 20,000 people in Ballymun and 3-bed semi land in Griffith Ave.

A full grade seperation north of Malahide would stop Darts crossing on the northern line; adding even more capacity; Swords could have Dart!
PVC King
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby marmajam » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:44 pm

airport abolished I C.

demolished for aggregate on the grade sepAration north of Malahide I guess :D
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby PVC King » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:50 pm

If you studied the 2003 plan you would know that the Airport connection broke south of Malahide call it spur 1 - it could terminate at Terminal 2 access to which is not difficult as it wouldn't need to cross runways etc.

A Swords extension from the existing line would break north of Broadmeadow Estuary and simply involve existing services going through 2kms of open country before taking the proposed MN alignment back onto the edge of Swords say just in from Seatown roundabout
PVC King
 

Re: Interconnector aka DART underground

Postby BluntGuy » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Hmm... while this is probably useless speculation at best, would there be any possible way we could've had the two proposed DART lines and perhaps a third one making use of existing lines plus newly constructed spurs to replace the more important parts of the MN route (like the airport).
BluntGuy
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Irish Planning Matters