The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby cgcsb » Mon May 12, 2008 5:59 pm

Don't forget, the city's buses carry many times more people than the Green LUAS line. It's true that you can alter bus routes, but you can also extend a LUAS line.
Laughable.[/QUOTE]

actually the luas has been a very big success. When both lines came into operation, Dublin bus lost 25% of it's patronage because of it and has since changed alot of it's bus routes to compensate
cgcsb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby CC105 » Mon May 12, 2008 8:12 pm

after spending an hour delayed this evening on our wonderful train system i would accept any bloody route for this line,
re the green luas cannot be described as anything other than an exceptional addition to the southsides transport, 20 mins to Sandyford - beat that on a bus!, Lets hope lucan, and other lines for the north side get a dedicated track along the lines of the green line, I think the red line suffers from sharing too much road space hence can at times feel like a bus. On this basis there is a real difference between the red and green line.
My main problem with the luas and other proposals for future lines - is the lack of overlap with them. The recent feasibilty study of a line through churchtown etc being one example - why have we not seen any plans to bridge the large gap between sandyford and the dart along the coast.
CC105
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby SeamusOG » Tue May 13, 2008 9:36 am

Rory W wrote:Some answers
Spencer dock rather than Connolly to deal with the congestion at connolly

A tunnel through/past Connolly deals with the congestion at Connolly. In effect, creating two extra lines at that location. I readily accept, however, that Spencer Dock is another option for dealing with the congestion at Connolly.

Pearse rather than Tara - larger space for facilities, better sited for integrating with the city's eastern districts, tara st site more problematic

Oh gawd. Integration again.

You've got to ask why Tara Street is a busier station than Pearse Station. Is it because it's more central and more people want to go there? It seems likely that that is the reason. I can't think of any other.

It's probably true that it's easier to build the tunnel through/past Pearse Station. Not necessarily the best option though. Just ask the planners of Munich, who are currently building a tunnel through very tight locations in the centre of their city - indeed to within a few metres of their iconic Frauenkirche - rather than going for easier options in less central locations.

The tunnel could surely be built through/past Tara Street station, bringing more people to where they want to go. And those who wish to travel to Pearse and "integrate with the city's Eastern districts" could change at Tara Street and do just that.

St Stephen's Green - I'd say a lot of office workers will be happy, also this corner of the green is at the top of one of our core retail streets so I'd say a lot of the current tara bound traffic will use this.

Building the tunnel through a more central location would also keep a lot of office workers happy. And other workers and partygoers and others happy as well. It's important to remember that the original figures for the metro indicated that the Trinity station was predicted to be busier than the St. Stephen's Green station. It's obvious where the busiest stops would be if the only city centre infrastructure project were to be the LUAS link-up. Again, indicating that more people wish to go to the central area, rather than to St. Stephen's Green.
SeamusOG
Member
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:59 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby SeamusOG » Tue May 13, 2008 10:01 am

weehamster wrote:- Connolly is unsuitable for underground tunnelling.

This is most probably a myth.

It didn't seem to be unsuitable back in the 1970s when a route was proposed from the Northern line to the Kildare line via Connolly Station, College Green/Dame Street and Heuston Station. I'd have to say that I wouldn't fancy tunnelling under the station since they built an office block on top of it, but it would most certainly not be one of the engineering feats of the new millenium to build a station under Amiens Street - with easy access to the current DART, intercity trains and the LUAS.

- Spencer Dock already has a line from the northern line which leads into it
- The northern line is an elevated track (from just before Killester Station and after Grand Canal Dock station) and you need to get around 15m below ground level for the tunnel. To get under Connelly, the tunnel needs to start near Killester station.

It is my understanding that the gradients required to bring the Northern line below ground between the Tolka and the Royal Canal are less steep than will be required to bring this line down to a sufficient depth to pass under the river at Spencer Dock. So it certainly should not be necessary to start anywhere near as far north as Killester.

Sorry mate, Integration -Luas (Green) (possibly Lucan), Metro tram, DART, and the fact its a popular shopping area as well as many people work around there too.

The integration possibilities are not superior at St. Stephen's Green compared to other city centre locations. Take College Green/Dame Street, for example, which (as mentioned above) was a suggested location for a station back in the 1970s. Obviously an East-West tunnel through here would integrate with the LUAS when it is linked, as is the plan. Also with the metro - remember that the metro documentation pointed out that a big reason for its station at St. Stephen's Green would be that it would allow a connection with the interconnector. Obviously, if there was a different route for the interconnector, there'd be different station locations on the metro. (Indeed, there was supposed to be a Trinity stop on the metro, but this got dumped in favour of the current plan - probably a world first - to build two large stations in just one location).

And, of course you've also got better integration with the city's buses at a more central location.

What, along the same route more buses carry more passengers that the Luas? Or are you referring to the whole city network compared to one narrow line.
You said it. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Integration possibilities with transport from all over the city, rather than just transport along one narrow corridor.

Clearly there are alternative routes to the current plan for the interconnector. The 1970s route for example. Or a Spencer Dock-Pearse Station-College Green/Dame Street-Christchurch-Heuston route. Or probably several others.

College Green/Dame Street seems to me, however, like the ideal location for the interchange. Dig it up, put in your stations, cover it over, replace a few statues and a fountain, and then pedestrianise the lot (as is part of the city's long term plan). No need, therefore, to destroy one of our most beautiful parks for decades to come.

It is simply not credible that only one possibility exists. However, only one route was presented to the public, which, in my view, is a scandal.
SeamusOG
Member
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:59 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby BostonorBerlin » Tue May 13, 2008 10:32 am

CC105 wrote:after spending an hour delayed this evening on our wonderful train system i would accept any bloody route for this line,


Yeah that was hilarious yesterday listening to the coverage on Newstalk of the chaos that enveloped Dublins 'progressive' (is that the right word there PeterF,, progressive did I get it right) transport system, because of one signal failure. 15 min delay turned to 30,45,1 hour , nearly fell off the garden seat laughing , no serioulsy I nearly did kept hearing the word integrated,integrated, being spoken in a rodents voice in my head. All those sweaty suited sardines stuck on the line. The only thing integrated about Dublins metropolitan transport system is the sharing of problems and delays, if one limb fails another limb feels the pain.

Get used to these type of delays..... once this St. Stephen green jobbie kicks in ... your guaranteed frequent ongoing disruption to all forms of traffic in dirty dublin town ...PeterF you live on a luas line dont you... go buy some reading material.

Would they ever start on those tulip beds and be done with it, Im eagerly anticipating the PR machine spin as Dublin grinds to a halt and recriminations fly about. Now that the tribunals are winding up, and without a TV it will be great entertainment. Ive a few old shovels in the potting shed Id donate to the cause, as the used say on the Kilburn road in the 50s "dig deep and throw it well back' .ha ha hah
BostonorBerlin
Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:33 am

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby alonso » Tue May 13, 2008 10:43 am

BoB why do you post about a city you hate so much?
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby notjim » Tue May 13, 2008 10:52 am

Yes; I often find BoB's nick ironic since his self-flagellating brand of Irish exceptionalism: "Ireland is the worst place in the world, but I amn't implicated because I criticize it with lazy sarcasm" most typical of someone who has never lived anywhere else but here.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby Peter Fitz » Tue May 13, 2008 12:20 pm

BoB wrote:Yeah that was hilarious yesterday listening to the coverage on Newstalk of the chaos that enveloped Dublins 'progressive' (is that the right word there PeterF,, progressive did I get it right) transport system, because of one signal failure. 15 min delay turned to 30,45,1 hour , nearly fell off the garden seat laughing , no serioulsy I nearly did kept hearing the word integrated,integrated, being spoken in a rodents voice in my head.


If you have to falsify my post or comments of others to make an argument]
PeterF you live on a luas line dont you... go buy some reading material.
[/QUOTE]

I do indeed, your comments aside, there's plenty of decent reading material on this site, cheers.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby Rory W » Tue May 13, 2008 3:09 pm

Seamus O'G wrote:A tunnel through/past Connolly deals with the congestion at Connolly. In effect, creating two extra lines at that location. I readily accept, however, that Spencer Dock is another option for dealing with the congestion at Connolly..


Where do you link this into the northern line? What about gradient? How do you keep the northern line (the countries busiest) fully operational - go via Spencer dock where you can be below the surface and avoid the canal and tolka

Seamus O'G wrote:Oh gawd. Integration again. ..


Well yes but what's your problem with integration - I'm talking about integrating new areas rather than transport types but if you want to go down that road we can - however I think it's important that new areas are opened up and linked to the city


Seamus O'G wrote:The tunnel could surely be built through/past Tara Street station, bringing more people to where they want to go. And those who wish to travel to Pearse and "integrate with the city's Eastern districts" could change at Tara Street and do just that.


Not in the same way as Pearse which is an easier option and has a greater site capacity

Seamus O'G wrote:Building the tunnel through a more central location would also keep a lot of office workers happy. And other workers and partygoers and others happy as well. It's important to remember that the original figures for the metro indicated that the Trinity station was predicted to be busier than the St. Stephen's Green station. It's obvious where the busiest stops would be if the only city centre infrastructure project were to be the LUAS link-up. Again, indicating that more people wish to go to the central area, rather than to St. Stephen's Green.


People if they really cannot face the horror of walking all the way down a pedestrianised street can get the Metro to O'Connell bridge at the interchange at St Stephen's Green but maybe that's integration of transport types and we know you have an aversion to that.
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby jimg » Tue May 13, 2008 6:50 pm

I don't get it. :confused: Why would you concentrate all this in a tight 900m corridor from Connolly to Tara to College Green? What does it give you? The current Interconnector proposal expands access to DART eastward to the Docklands and south to Stephen's Green. Why would you have two "stacked" heavy rail lines following the exact same route for nearly 2km? What utility is there having two points of intersection between two stacked rail lines 600m apart?

The current proposal also makes sense from an engineering point of view; the branch off the northern line towards Spencer Dock is already there minimising the distruption to existing services during construction. In addition the the Midlands and Kildare lines will have access to the Interconnector providing flexability for the future. Rory W has raised a valid concern; to get under Connolly, you either sever the Royal Canal or start the tunnel much further north.

They've been thinking about how to do this (provide an integrated commuter heavy rail network) for 30 years. Pretty much everything feasible has been considered (including tunneling under Connolly) and evaluated. The current Interconnector is superior in nearly every respect to all the alternatives. For once we will be getting the optimal solution in terms of expanding coverage and increasing integration.
jimg
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: Zürich

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby Pilear » Tue May 13, 2008 7:05 pm

where are people getting this information that tara st is used more than pearse station at present?
Pilear
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby notjim » Tue May 13, 2008 7:45 pm

I think this factoid dates from the time the redevelopment was planned; here is an example

http://www.cie.ie/news_centre/press_releases.asp?action=view&news_id=13

It does makes sense, traffic for the CBD is split between Pearse and Barrow St,
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby SeamusOG » Wed May 14, 2008 11:50 am

Rory W wrote:Where do you link this into the northern line? What about gradient? How do you keep the northern line (the countries busiest) fully operational - go via Spencer dock where you can be below the surface and avoid the canal and tolka

As I pointed out above, Spencer Dock is one option, Connolly is another. Certainly keeping the line fully operational would require a considerable amount of planning - but again, this kind of thing is done the world over (on busier lines) and similar problems seem to be surmountable. As for the gradient, I suggest you re-read my comment about it above.

People if they really cannot face the horror of walking all the way down a pedestrianised street can get the Metro to O'Connell bridge at the interchange at St Stephen's Green but maybe that's integration of transport types and we know you have an aversion to that.

You seem to have missed my point about integration. It is very important that we develop an integrated system. However, other potential routes could achieve exactly the same level of integration of LUAS, metro and DART, and a more central route has the added advantage that it would also have considerably better bus connections to all parts of the city.

Such a route through the centre of the city was proposed in the 1970s. However, when it was decided to cut the Green Line short, and not build it through the centre of the city, these plans seem to have changed to accomodate this. Effectively, the route now included a big loop and became considerably longer than it needed to be in order to integrate with the LUAS.

Now, a longer route is also a more expensive one. The current estimate is that the line will cost 2 billion euro. Let's say, for example, that this cost is 100 million euro more than a more direct route across the city. For example, Heuston-Christchurch-College Green/Dame Street-Pearse Station-Spencer Dock.

By building the more direct route and linking the two LUAS lines (which is part of the plan), you achieve the same integration which is planned with the St. Stephen's Green route. You also save 100 million euro. Oh, and because you don't have to have an interchange at St. Stephen's Green, you can build a much simpler metro station there. And so you can keep destruction of the park to a minimum.

The metro plans would need to be changed accordingly, but this should not be too much of a problem. The current proposal is to build two very large stations at just one location (O'Connell Bridge) - go see the pictures, it's a crazy arrangement. Given the necessary depth of these stations - because of the river - it would very possibly be cheaper to build two stations at separate locations. O'Connell Street itself and College Green/Dame Street., for example.

So you see, there are alternatives.

jimg wrote:They've been thinking about how to do this (provide an integrated commuter heavy rail network) for 30 years. Pretty much everything feasible has been considered (including tunneling under Connolly) and evaluated. The current Interconnector is superior in nearly every respect to all the alternatives. For once we will be getting the optimal solution in terms of expanding coverage and increasing integration.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to some evidence that everything has been examined. The material relating to the interconnector "consultation" was rather thin on which routes had been studied prior to selection of the one route which was presented to the public.

As I said above, such a charade would not have occurred in any other country in Northern Europe.
SeamusOG
Member
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:59 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby notjim » Wed May 14, 2008 12:39 pm

Out of interest, could you direct me to some evidence that

Seamus O'G wrote:such a charade would not have occurred in any other country in Northern Europe.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby BostonorBerlin » Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 pm

St Stephens Green could this be Eyre Sq squared in the making...http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3850&highlight=eyre&page=2

I was thinking about this whilst weeding the veggies last night and I came up with the solution to one problem, who do we get to demolish I mean turn the sanctuary that is St Stephens Green into Grand Central Terminal.
We should get the same crowd who made a bollix of Eyre Square to do the the work on St Stephens Green. They have a proven record in meeting the required criteria for this job, cost overrun, shoddy workmanship, uninspiring aesthetic, substandard material, worker walkouts, time delay, and massive inconvenience to surrounding small business some of which went out of business. Not to mention the exhorbitant cost, 9 million, not including litigation from small firms in the area, plus all the compo for those injured on the cheap chinese paving slabs, that is after all what the tourists come here for, to see our chineese slabs… we are on a winner. Its not like we need that wasted money for anything else either like schools,hospital beds, playgrounds etc.
Everyone can relax and rest easy knowing that this project will follow in a long line of mediocre public projects, in fact the St Stephens green development could aspire to be the epitome of mediocrity and ineptitude , is that some kind of misnomer, epitome of medicority.
Anyways if we are lucky maybe all the same people who were involved in the mini-debacle that was Eyre Sq, the designers, engineers, architects, planners, politicians will be available to relocate to Dublin on taxpayers shilling to have a lash at St Stephens Green , unless of course theres already a coeterie of such in Dubhlinn with time on their hands now that the tiger has legged it :D
BostonorBerlin
Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:33 am

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby reddy » Wed May 14, 2008 2:33 pm

Bit off topic..

I know the eyre square redevelopment seems to have been a right mess and I'm not fully up to speed on what happened but I'd just like to point out that I was in Galway a couple of weeks ago and we sat in Eyre square drinkin smoothies, sitting in the sun and watching hordes of people, walking, talking, busking, playing and even attempting to get as many people as possible into a phonebooth.

Admittedly it was a beautiful day and the whole place was in a resultant good mood but the square was working really well. There's no way I'd ever have even dreamed of doing similar in the old square.


Anyway thats off the point, There's a lot of pessimism here. Lets hope that the RPA, the local authorites and everyone else involved here are SLOWLY but surely learning from past experience.
reddy
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:03 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby Blisterman » Thu May 15, 2008 12:05 pm

Can anyone here explain why the Metro has to terminate in Stephen's Green?

It would seem to me, that the logical thing to do, is to continue the tunnel half a mile past there, to Charlemount, and have it join up with the Luas tracks, continuing on to Sandyford. Completely replacing the Luas Green Line.

Why aren't they doing this?
Blisterman
Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:21 pm
Location: London (Orignally Dublin)

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby Peter Fitz » Thu May 15, 2008 12:44 pm

Blisterman wrote:Can anyone here explain why the Metro has to terminate in Stephen's Green?


Nope, its inexplicable.
The cost of doing the turn back loop might even get them some way up towards the canal.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby Rory W » Thu May 15, 2008 3:18 pm

Seamus O'G wrote:As I pointed out above, Spencer Dock is one option, Connolly is another. Certainly keeping the line fully operational would require a considerable amount of planning - but again, this kind of thing is done the world over (on busier lines) and similar problems seem to be surmountable. As for the gradient, I suggest you re-read my comment about it above. .


For someone so keen on saving money you are intent on imposing a vastly more expensive engineering solution.

Seamus O'G wrote:Such a route through the centre of the city was proposed in the 1970s. However, when it was decided to cut the Green Line short, and not build it through the centre of the city, these plans seem to have changed to accomodate this. Effectively, the route now included a big loop and became considerably longer than it needed to be in order to integrate with the LUAS.


40 year old plan as seen in old secondary school books do not an effective plan make

Seamus O'G wrote:Now, a longer route is also a more expensive one. The current estimate is that the line will cost 2 billion euro. Let's say, for example, that this cost is 100 million euro more than a more direct route across the city. For example, Heuston-Christchurch-College Green/Dame Street-Pearse Station-Spencer Dock.

By building the more direct route and linking the two LUAS lines (which is part of the plan), you achieve the same integration which is planned with the St. Stephen's Green route. You also save 100 million euro. Oh, and because you don't have to have an interchange at St. Stephen's Green, you can build a much simpler metro station there. And so you can keep destruction of the park to a minimum..


I thought you wanted to go via Tara, rather than Pearse? At least be consistant. While the damage to the park should be kept to a minimum you don't however seem to mind ripping up College Green however which is one of the busiest areas (transport and pedestrian wise) of the city as well as surrounded by some of the most historic buildings in the city.


Seamus O'G wrote:So you see, there are alternatives.

Yes but not realistic ones


Seamus O'G wrote:Perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to some evidence that everything has been examined. The material relating to the interconnector "consultation" was rather thin on which routes had been studied prior to selection of the one route which was presented to the public. As I said above, such a charade would not have occurred in any other country in Northern Europe.


Perhaps they used common sense (linking everything together realistically) before proposing the route?
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby missarchi » Thu May 15, 2008 6:26 pm

would st stephens green be a world heritage site or just a nice park???
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby SeamusOG » Fri May 16, 2008 8:36 am

Rory W wrote:I thought you wanted to go via Tara, rather than Pearse? At least be consistant.

It doesn't matter to me which route it takes. I'd simply like to see a proper assessment of the various options for an East-West line across the city - remember, the highest capacity line ever to be built in Ireland. These include the 1970s route, the route which we were presented with in the "consultation" and other possible routes (e.g. a Heuston-College Green/Dame Street-Spencer Dock option). There is no evidence available yet that this has occurred.

While the damage to the park should be kept to a minimum you don't however seem to mind ripping up College Green however which is one of the busiest areas (transport and pedestrian wise) of the city as well as surrounded by some of the most historic buildings in the city.

I don't mind it at all. Because it would be easy to restore it to its current state or, better still, to eventually pedestrianise it. Munich's Marienplatz would be a fine example of a city square under which there is a transport interchange. And it's right in the centre of that city, with plenty of historic buildings in the vicinity of the lines. Unfortunately, in Dublin it is proposed to avoid the centre with the country's highest capacity line.

College Green/Dame Street is busy for a reason. It's right in the centre of the city. Construction there would cause disruption, almost certainly more than would be the case in a less central location like St. Stephen's Green. It would just have to be dealt with, and lived with.

{It would, for example, surely be possible to build a tunnel from, say, Newtownmountkennedy, to the southside DART line without causing disruption to anyone, probably indeed without anyone even noticing that construction was underway. That is not necessarily an indication that the route chosen was the correct one, or that a tunnel was the best option.:D)

Yes but not realistic ones

Now Rory, we were talking about possible routes for the interconnector. Am I getting here your (considered) opinion or the conclusions of some high level report into possible routes. (A report which seems to be presently unavailable for viewing by the public),
SeamusOG
Member
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:59 pm

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby jimg » Fri May 16, 2008 7:46 pm

I dunno. I think the T21 plan (fingers crossed it gets implemented) is absolutely fantastic. As an excuse to learn something about Inkscape, I created the attached image which demonstrates what we are getting in terms of high capacity rail in the city centre. (I'm quite a bit less enthusiastic about what is planned for Luas.) Dart 1 is red, Dart 2 is green and Metro North is blue. The slightly opaque circles represent about a 400m cachement area around the stations. Walking slowly, 400m takes under 5 minutes. Everything (except the fact that Metro North doesn't extend further south) seems to make sense to me in terms of maximising the use of the existing infrastructure, providing coverage and integration. Squishing everything into the centre (i.e. moving the Green interchange to College Green, pushing Spensor Dock under Connolly and the Dart 2 stop under Pearse under Tara) the makes no sense to me. Dame St and College Green are covered in cachement circles. This will be easily worth some trees on Stephen's Green; just look at it!
Attachments
city_centre_t21_sj.JPG
city_centre_t21_sj.JPG (120.7 KiB) Viewed 2672 times
jimg
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: Zürich

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby BTH » Fri May 16, 2008 8:48 pm

Yes it does look reasonably convincing alright - theres a rather obvious gap in coverage to the east of croke park however - surely a station in this vicinity would be essential at least for match days if not to serve the population in that area - difficult to acheive i know given the existing infrastructure/curves etc. Theres also an unfortunate gap in the Thomas St area, just where a station would be poised to serve the smithfield area. Seems like a fair distribution of stations otherwise...
BTH
Member
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Galway

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby notjim » Fri May 16, 2008 9:23 pm

This is drifting off topic, but I had thought at one stage there was talk about adding another stop on the lower line somewhere east of croagh park, hard to say where there would be room to do that, but more's to the point, what is happening to the lower line in T21, will it still be used for anything?
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The destruction of St. Stephen's Green

Postby ofjames » Fri May 16, 2008 10:19 pm

notjim wrote:This is drifting off topic, but I had thought at one stage there was talk about adding another stop on the lower line somewhere east of croagh park, hard to say where there would be room to do that, but more's to the point, what is happening to the lower line in T21, will it still be used for anything?


after irish rail lost the battle for the broadstone alignment, Minister Dempsey gave them a consolation prize by suggesting that the current Docklands station will be retained to cater for the Navan services IR wanted to send to Broadstone. As it stands, it seems that the time-restriction on the planning permission that was granted for Docklands will be scrapped, and the midland line will continue to be used in the future for Navan and perhaps some other maynooth line services
ofjames
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland