Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

dowlingm · 07-04-2011 9:08pm

ABP gave an excuse for phased implementation of MN (CBD-Ballymun-M50) once they demanded the relocation of the yard south of Swords-DUB.

Phased implementation of DU only works if you come around through Docklands/Pearse/StSG rather than east from Inchicore, because any electrification of Kildare Route requires a Heuston side electric yard immediately, whereas a Northern Line extension could use Fairview trains, freeing up terminal capacity in Connolly and with a shared pool of trains and drivers.

murphaph · 07-04-2011 10:18pm

bg07 wrote: »

Berlin has a good example of rail line being built in stages as perhaps Leo is suggesting. The partial opening of the U55 in the city is a case of bureaucracy gone mad and a warning that even if DU or MN go to site there is no guarantee that they will be finished. If the Germans can go astray on an underground project what chance is there for a bankrupt Ireland?

Murphaph you would probably know, has work on finishing the U55 restarted yet?

Yes, but it's really the U5 project which will take years to complete but will be completed. Only the short bit (shortest underground line in Germany, 3 stops total) is called the U55 and as soon as it meets the existing U5 it will lose the extra '5'. The whole story of the U55 is indeed a strange one, but luckily in a city with such a comprehensive network, it can be looked upon as a bit of a joke.

strassenwo!f · 07-04-2011 10:47pm

Jack Noble wrote: »

He waffled about part-building projects bit by bit - one station at a time over a longer period. How in the name of Jaysus can you do that with MN or Dart Underground?

I doubt if he was waffling. This kind of thing happens all the time, with gradual extensions of underground lines out towards the suburbs. Many cities have done, or are doing, projects like that.

Oddly enough, one city which actually did what he was suggesting, and slap bang in the centre to boot, was Ireland's current bugbear: Frankfurt.

The city has a population and population density in or around that of Dublin. The population is a bit more than that of the Dublin City Council area, though the density is lower. It's flanked by a number of other cities in a conurbation which, taken together with Frankfurt, would overall have a considerably larger population than that of County Dublin, though not an appreciably greater area.

In Frankfurt, the largest public transport infrastructure project was the creation of a tunnel linking commuter lines into the city from the North and West with those from the South and East.

This was done in a number of stages: an initial 3-station underground line (opened in 1978) bringing lines from the North and West closer to the city centre; a later extension deeper into the city; a further extension which added 2 new underground stations and the breakthrough to the other side of the city; and a final step which added extra underground stations and brought the lines from the East into the mix (opened in 1992).

Interestingly, construction was carried out in such a way that extra lines were built on the approach to the initial city centre (underground) termini so that the tunnel could be used to something approaching its full capacity right from the very beginning. Although they are no longer needed by the S-Bahn, because of the breakthrough across the city, these extra lines are now used to this day as an important part of Frankfurt's U-Bahn network.

I can't say that LV is right that this could be the right approach for Dublin, but he's not coming up with anything new in suggesting it.

Zebra3 · 07-04-2011 11:48pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I doubt if he was waffling. This kind of thing happens all the time, with gradual extensions of underground lines out towards the suburbs. Many cities have done, or are doing, projects like that.

Sure it's happened in Dublin with the Luas network, however I can't see how DU or MN can be done bit by bit.

DWCommuter · 08-04-2011 12:52am

Zebra3 wrote: »

Sure it's happened in Dublin with the Luas network, however I can't see how DU or MN can be done bit by bit.

They can't. So we may get yet another bit by bit Luas.:rolleyes:

IngazZagni · 08-04-2011 1:32am

Hopefully a yes or no decision will be made soon and I have my fingers crossed that it's a yes.

If it's a no then Luas BXD needs to be prioritised and started immediately and maybe even if it's a yes too. BXD should be a lot cheaper to build and will provide that important connection.

Zebra3 · 08-04-2011 1:47am

IngazZagni wrote: »

If it's a no then Luas BXD needs to be prioritised and started immediately and maybe even if it's a yes too. BXD should be a lot cheaper to build and will provide that important connection.

I think that's what everyone is expecting at this stage.

Merely getting a bit of Luas that should have been built by 2004.

Maybe, just maybe, the electricification of the Maynooth line too.

lods · 08-04-2011 6:55am

Only one of 'big three' transport projects to go ahead, says Minister

TIM O'BRIEN

Fri, Apr 08, 2011

JUST ONE of the “big three” transport projects – Metro North, Dart Underground and the Luas interconnector – will go ahead in the next five years, Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar said yesterday.

Speaking as he attended a tram test on the Citywest Luas extension in west Dublin, Mr Varadkar said he was determined one project would go ahead but there would be no money for the other two.

Mr Varadkar said a decision on which projects would proceed would not be made before September, the deadline for his review of all capital spending by his department.

All three projects were among key Transport 21 initiatives announced in 2005. But yesterday Mr Varadkar said Transport 21 was based on different assumptions. It was based on an economy that was awash with cash and a city that was growing dramatically. “We are not awash with cash anymore and our city is not growing any more,” he said.

Mr Varadkar said the two runner-up projects would be progressed to “railway order” status, in effect planning permission for the projects, and then mothballed until the State had the money to progress them further.

While a “strong case” could be made for Metro North, he added: “The question the Government has to answer between now and September is, first of all, do we have the exchequer funding to pay for the exchequer part of it, and is the private funding going to be available.”

He said all three projects were to be assessed against a number of criteria: “first of all the availability of finance; secondly the cost benefit analyses, which are done already for two of the projects; and things like the impact on customers.” He also said the review would look at “which one would benefit the most people, which one is likely to cover its costs, and which one is the best in terms of emissions for climate change – but that is the whole point of having the review,” he said.

He had already directed that “funds not used by the NRA this year” should be used to repair secondary, regional and local roads, in a move that would result in “hundreds of contracts mainly for small, local firms this year”, he said

Work will also begin in coming weeks on a new national development plan 2012-2018, a move that was promised in the programme for government.

Mr Varadkar declined to say which of the big three projects was his preferred choice, in advance of the review. But he said nobody could doubt the case for Metro North.

“It really is excellent. It is not just a train line to the airport – it goes to Swords, it links up the Maynooth-Connolly line, it links up the Luas, it serves DCU, it serves the Mater.”

However, Fianna Fáil Senator Darragh O’Brien accused Mr Varadkar of making “the wrong call” in not approving enabling works for Metro North and including it in the review. “To facilitate construction utilities, pipes and telecommunications running under O’Connell Street need to be moved.” He said it was important this happen now.

The Luas extension Mr Varadkar was inspecting is due to open in July. The 4.2km track will leave the existing Red Line at Belgard and serve stops located at Fettercairn, Cheeverstown, Citywest, Fortunestown and Saggart.

The extension is expected to attract some two million passenger journeys each year from the west Tallaght area. The cost of the extension is €150 million and the journey time to the city centre is expected to be 55 minutes.

The new service will offer a tram every 10 minutes at peak, while the frequency on the Tallaght branch is to be every six minutes.

© 2011 The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0408/1224294220939_pf.html

dubhthach · 08-04-2011 8:01am

I'm assuming the "Luas Interconnector" is the line through city centre connecting Green and Red together. Given that this is probably the cheapest of the three options what's the odds it will get the nod? :rolleyes:

lods · 08-04-2011 8:25am

dubhthach wrote: »

I'm assuming the "Luas Interconnector" is the line through city centre connecting Green and Red together. Given that this is probably the cheapest of the three options what's the odds it will get the nod? :rolleyes:

Sounds like its being renamed and built up to be something its not.:rolleyes:

Son of Stupido · 08-04-2011 9:29am

dubhthach wrote: »

I'm assuming the "Luas Interconnector" is the line through city centre connecting Green and Red together. Given that this is probably the cheapest of the three options what's the odds it will get the nod? :rolleyes:

My bet is on the metro for the following reasons

It has planning and is ready for construction (preliminary works)
The services have to be dug up and moved for both the metro and the Luas link, so at this stage (prep works) there would be no savings between the two
The link would be out of action for 4 years when they returned to build the underground stations...there wouldnt be enough room to maintain the service
The DART Underground is too far behind in the planning stage so is likely to lose out
The DU is also (kind of) dependent on the Metro to feed in and link other areas to the network

Although, there could be a hybrid....they do the Luas link but build the underground stations for the metro, not the tunnels, and mothball them until they bore the tunnels at a later stage thus no disruption to the Luas during metro construction

;);)

Sponge Bob · 08-04-2011 9:40am

BXD is the (very) poor mans Metro North. Do remember that if Leo authorises enabling works in O Connell St that DU is off the list and the choice will be made between MN and BXD.

It will provide Leos constituents with a route to the City Centre rather than Connolly of course. If they could flatten Broombridge and rebuild as a bunker with guard posts on the perimiter .....most preferably by nuking the area.... then bonusage accrues

Put the new prison on top so that the lags have a view perhaps ????

dynamick · 08-04-2011 11:47am

In any case, no decision is to be made on transport capital projects until September. So we can all meet back here in 5 months time and see how the Irish bond yields are doing.

Sponge Bob · 08-04-2011 12:02pm

Time enough to design a retro Vauban type emplacement in Broombridge even

Highly Salami · 08-04-2011 12:07pm

dynamick wrote: »

In any case, no decision is to be made on transport capital projects until September. So we can all meet back here in 5 months time and see how the Irish bond yields are doing.

source?

Jack Noble · 08-04-2011 12:09pm

Highly Salami wrote: »

source?

Leo Varadkar said it yesterday at Citywest Luas PR stunt.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0408/1224294220939.html

Mr Varadkar said the two runner-up projects would be progressed to “railway order” status, in effect planning permission for the projects, and then mothballed until the State had the money to progress them further.
While a “strong case” could be made for Metro North, he added: “The question the Government has to answer between now and September is, first of all, do we have the exchequer funding to pay for the exchequer part of it, and is the private funding going to be available.”

oharach · 08-04-2011 12:10pm

It really sounds like he wants to say 'yes' to Metro North.

Using the criteria he mentions:

1. Availability of finance:
– Luas BXD is the cheapest but entirely exchequer funded afaik,
– Metro North depends on the ability to raise private finance
– Interconnector also depends on private finance
Winner: impossible to say

2. Cost-benefit analysis
– Luas BXD: very high benefit for low investment
– Metro North: approx 2:1 subject to final tender price
– Interconnector: approx 2.5:1
Winner: Interconnector > Luas BXD > Metro North, but they are all strong

3. Impact on customers (I read this as journey time/convenience)
– Luas BXD: convenient, but doesn't really cut journey times vs walking from Stephen's Green
– Metro North: quantum leap in commuting for people within the corridor as regards speed and convenience
– Interconnector: cuts cross-city journey times and makes many more parts of Dublin accessible
Winner: Metro North imo

4. Benefit the most people
– Luas BXD: relatively small increase in passenger numbers, esp at peak times, when the Green line is full anyway.
– Metro North: all new passengers, except those choosing Metro over Swords Express/airport buses
– Interconnector: likely to see a huge increase in commuting from the Kildare Line; lesser increases on the Northern and Maynooth line
Winner: Metro North or Interconnector broadly evenly matched

5. Climate change
– Luas BXD: small impact – redirecting passengers from buses
– Metro North: large impact – many new passengers; some transferring from buses
– Interconnector: largest impact – many new passengers, who will travel much further on average than the other two projects, therefore saving more carbon emissions.
Winner: Interconnector, followed by Metro North.

That's what I think anyway. In the end it will come down to the relative weight given to each of those factors, and the availability of finance.

lucernarian · 08-04-2011 1:34pm

Is there an official Cost-Benefit Analysis for the luas BXD? It strikes me as quite useless, not even offering significant increases in journey times vs walking, along with disruption to an extremely busy bus corridor. Also is visually obtrusive on TCD/College Green in particular.

mgmt · 08-04-2011 1:51pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Is there an official Cost-Benefit Analysis for the luas BXD? It strikes me as quite useless, not even offering significant increases in journey times vs walking, along with disruption to an extremely busy bus corridor. Also is visually obtrusive on TCD/College Green in particular.

College Green should be turned into a pedestrian square. Luas BXD will cause havoc in the city centre for cyclists, particularly at TCD.

Is there scope for the Luas Green Line to continue down underground at St Stephans Green to join up with Metro North?

markpb · 08-04-2011 2:02pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Also is visually obtrusive on TCD/College Green in particular.

You mean put it back the way it was not so long ago?

mgmt wrote: »

College Green should be turned into a pedestrian square. Luas BXD will cause havoc in the city centre for cyclists, particularly at TCD.

There's loads of space around college green to squeeze in two trams lines and cycling space. How on earth do the cyclists in Amsterdam manage to surive?

mgmt wrote: »

Is there scope for the Luas Green Line to continue down underground at St Stephans Green to join up with Metro North?

The largest cost in tunnelling is the entry and exit portals. Digging a tunnel for less than 1km would be terribly bad value for money. If we're dropping a TBM in the city centre, we may as well continue on with it.

lucernarian · 08-04-2011 2:11pm

markpb wrote: »

You mean put it back the way it was not so long ago?

That's not really here or there, the fact is that there are currently no gantries on College Green and putting back up will have an inevitable visual impact (as far as planning and IMO amenity/visual costs are concerned).

Furthermore, the BXD route would involve catenary wires near more of the front of TCD (the Grafton St. and some of Nassau St. aspects) than was the case in the link above.

And this bit is my opinion, but I think TCD looks better now than it does in that link.

mgmt · 08-04-2011 2:14pm

markpb wrote: »

The largest cost in tunnelling is the entry and exit portals. Digging a tunnel for less than 1km would be terribly bad value for money. If we're dropping a TBM in the city centre, we may as well continue on with it.

For what its worth the Great Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy 2011–2030 proposes to link up Metro North with Luas Green Line. http://dublinobserver.com/2011/03/rail-luas-metro-upgrades-suggested-for-dublin/

The entrance to the tunnel will be cut-and-cover anyway. Drop in the TBM and continue boring out to the Airport. Perhaps with the added benefit of being able to use the downramp of the Luas Green Line to extract the excavated material on a freight tram.

mgmt · 08-04-2011 2:17pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's not really here or there, the fact is that there are currently no gantries on College Green and putting back up will have an inevitable visual impact (as far as planning and IMO amenity/visual costs are concerned).

Furthermore, the BXD route would involve catenary wires near more of the front of TCD (the Grafton St. and some of Nassau St. aspects) than was the case in the link above.

And this bit is my opinion, but I think TCD looks better now than it does in that link.

Also you could potentially have the Lucan Luas line joining up at College Green.

Zebra3 · 08-04-2011 2:49pm

Oharach,

Don't forget the "votes for politicans" test.

D.L.R. · 08-04-2011 3:03pm

Having a clear picture of the future of the green line is key here.

If it gets metro-ised and joined to Metro North, then BXD becomes largely redundant.

And likewise, if the Green line ends up as a tram line coupled to BXD, then why does MN need to go towards SSG at all? It could go to one of the mainline stations, for example.

The point is, ironing out this fuzzy double vision is essential if we want the best results.

oharach · 08-04-2011 3:18pm

According to the business case for Luas BXD – i.e. the whole way from Stephen's Green to Broombridge, the benefit to cost ratio is 2.46:1. Including Dublin Bus estimates of operating cost and revenue dilution impacts during construction, the BCR drops to 2.15:1. This does not include the wider economic benefits. Anything over 2 is considered very good.

I am unaware of a cost:benefit analysis for the BX link from St Stephen's Green to O'Connell St, excluding the extension to Broombridge.

Source: BXD line business case, p. 62 (June 2009)

Don't forget the "votes for politicans" test.

Always a factor I concede, but LV seems much less susceptible to it than the previous lot, and we are very early in the Dáil session, so short-term election-politics is less of an issue.

mgmt · 08-04-2011 3:30pm

oharach wrote: »

According to the business case for Luas BXD – i.e. the whole way from Stephen's Green to Broombridge, the benefit to cost ratio is 2.46:1. Including Dublin Bus estimates of operating cost and revenue dilution impacts during construction, the BCR drops to 2.15:1. This does not include the wider economic benefits. Anything over 2 is considered very good.

I am unaware of a cost:benefit analysis for the BX link from St Stephen's Green to O'Connell St, excluding the extension to Broombridge.

Source: BXD line business case, p. 62 (June 2009)

Always a factor I concede, but LV seems much less susceptible to it than the previous lot, and we are very early in the Dáil session, so short-term election-politics is less of an issue.

APPENDIX 2 – CBA Parameters and Assumptions

Growth
Real GNP Growth % pa
2000 to 2002 6.23%
2002 to 2010 2.70%
2011 to 2015 2.37%
2016+ 2.29%
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/line_bxd_business_case.pdf pg99

I think the above figures make nonsense of the CBA figures.

oharach · 08-04-2011 3:40pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Having a clear picture of the future of the green line is key here.

If it gets metro-ised and joined to Metro North, then BXD becomes largely redundant.

And likewise, if the Green line ends up as a tram line coupled to BXD, then why does MN need to go towards SSG at all? It could go to one of the mainline stations, for example.

The point is, ironing out this fuzzy double vision is essential if we want the best results.

I agree about the need to have a clear picture of where we are going, but MN does need to go to SSG, because that is where it interchanges with the Interconnector, a massive trip generator

The only other place it could conceivably interchange with the Interconnector is Pearse, but that would all but rule out a later extension of Metro North to the South/Southwest of the city, which will happen eventually. There also wouldn't be enough interchange capacity at Pearse.

Either:
(1) Metro North is extended underground to Beechwood, where it surfaces and joins the Luas Green line, which is converted to Metro from that point. Luas BXD is probably curtailed to St Stephen's Green, but still provides important connections to the south city centre, Metro and Interconnector for passengers along the D section of the line.

Or:
(2) Metro North is extended southwest along a new route. Luas BXD remains as a single Luas line. The overlap with Metro North is small (1 stop on the Metro). Examples from other cities: Frankfurt – Konstablerwache – Hauptwache (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in parallel tunnels); Munich – Sendlinger Tor – Fraunhoferstraße (U-Bahn and Tram parallel; Munich – Hauptbahnhof – Karlsplatz (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in neighbouring tunnels).

Broadly speaking, those are the 2 options.

oharach · 08-04-2011 3:45pm

mgmt wrote: »

I think the above figures make nonsense of the CBA figures.

You're right to call the figures into question, which is why I did point out the date of the report (nearly 2 years old by this stage). However, even if a 1% growth rate means the figures do have to be reassessed, the business case was very strong in the first place, and can probably take a bit of a hit and still be worth doing.

My first preference is still for Metro North, subject to final CBR. As with many on this forum, I now prefer it over the Interconnector because it's a more realistic bet, and it's better to have one major scheme go ahead than none. BX is not a solution to very much imo.

D.L.R. · 08-04-2011 4:57pm

oharach wrote: »

I agree about the need to have a clear picture of where we are going, but MN does need to go to SSG, because that is where it interchanges with the Interconnector, a massive trip generator

The only other place it could conceivably interchange with the Interconnector is Pearse, but that would all but rule out a later extension of Metro North to the South/Southwest of the city, which will happen eventually. There also wouldn't be enough interchange capacity at Pearse.

Either:
(1) Metro North is extended underground to Beechwood, where it surfaces and joins the Luas Green line, which is converted to Metro from that point. Luas BXD is probably curtailed to St Stephen's Green, but still provides important connections to the south city centre, Metro and Interconnector for passengers along the D section of the line.

Or:
(2) Metro North is extended southwest along a new route. Luas BXD remains as a single Luas line. The overlap with Metro North is small (1 stop on the Metro). Examples from other cities: Frankfurt – Konstablerwache – Hauptwache (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in parallel tunnels); Munich – Sendlinger Tor – Fraunhoferstraße (U-Bahn and Tram parallel; Munich – Hauptbahnhof – Karlsplatz (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in neighbouring tunnels).

Broadly speaking, those are the 2 options.

My gripe isn't SSG per se, more the lack of imagination in opening up as many areas as possible. Either way you're overlapping from the Green to Parnell Square, when there are plenty of areas nearby which could use a rail link. Such as a more westerly route through Patrick St area interchanging at Christchurch, and then across to Broadstone. For example.

The BXD/MN duplication just seems confused, or lazy. Or both!

oharach · 08-04-2011 6:46pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

My gripe isn't SSG per se, more the lack of imagination in opening up as many areas as possible. Either way you're overlapping from the Green to Parnell Square, when there are plenty of areas nearby which could use a rail link. Such as a more westerly route through Patrick St area interchanging at Christchurch, and then across to Broadstone. For example.

The BXD/MN duplication just seems confused, or lazy. Or both!

Another reason SSG was chosen is because there is a lot of open space to create the station. As it is, there were numerous issues with finding a suitable site for a station at Christchurch, largely because of archaelogical issues. Realistically, if you wanted to create a much larger interchange station, it would have to be mined, which is pretty costly. There was supposed to have been a North-South Luas line through Christchurch, but the feasability study wasn't positive on getting it through the arch in Winetavern Street.

dowlingm · 08-04-2011 7:21pm

One thing to remember is how much service is going to run north of StSG on BX - some of it is likely to turn back if only to keep schedules, and the same on D. One option to reduce cost and streetscape impact in the city core could be to run a short length or lengths of bidirectional single track as is being done in Angers over one 300m section, if the resulting frequency would be high enough.

oharach · 08-04-2011 7:30pm

dowlingm wrote: »

One thing to remember is how much service is going to run north of StSG on BX - some of it is likely to turn back if only to keep schedules, and the same on D. One option to reduce cost and streetscape impact in the city core could be to run a short length or lengths of bidirectional single track as is being done in Angers over one 300m section, if the resulting frequency would be high enough.

Really? I would have thought this was pretty unlikely unless a third platform was built at SSG for turnbacks. Space looks pretty tight, but it would probably just about be possible.

D.L.R. · 08-04-2011 7:44pm

oharach wrote: »

Another reason SSG was chosen is because there is a lot of open space to create the station. As it is, there were numerous issues with finding a suitable site for a station at Christchurch, largely because of archaelogical issues. Realistically, if you wanted to create a much larger interchange station, it would have to be mined, which is pretty costly. There was supposed to have been a North-South Luas line through Christchurch, but the feasability study wasn't positive on getting it through the arch in Winetavern Street.

Well, I was thinking more as a tram line yeah. Follow line D south to Broadstone, but instead go
Constitution Hill-Church St-Brazen Head-High St-Christchurch.
Here you meet other proposed lines and the Dart.

Sponge Bob · 08-04-2011 7:47pm

dowlingm wrote: »

One option to reduce cost and streetscape impact in the city core could be to run a short length or lengths of bidirectional single track as is being done in Angers over one 300m section, if the resulting frequency would be high enough.

Not only can you do that outside Trinity but there is no need for Overhead cabling either.

http://www.alstom.com/transport/news-and-events/press-releases/Nice-chooses-ALSTOMs-CITADIS-for-its-new-tram-in-an-order-worth-57-million-euros-20040916/

As this line will run through Place Masséna and Place Garibaldi; Canca asked for the tram to be able to cross them without the need for overhead power lines. The CITADIS trams will therefore be equipped with nickel-metal hydride batteries, such as already used by electric buses

This is the net result on Streetview. The Place Massena run looks like the length of Grafton St and Past Trinity and not an overhead in sight

Further north is This vista

This Line in Nice is 8.6km long and cost €560m including enabling works. As Luas Line BXD is 5.6km long, 2/3 the length of the Nice Line even we can surely manage to build it for 2/3 the cost or €400m..including rounding.

Say €500m including the extra enabling works for MN in future. Run a 24 hour shuttle bus from Broombridge to the Airport out Finglas direction and sorted. :cool:

Watch out for Leo taking a ministerial trip to Nice lads

Pete_Cavan · 08-04-2011 7:53pm

mgmt wrote: »

College Green should be turned into a pedestrian square. Luas BXD will cause havoc in the city centre for cyclists, particularly at TCD.

On the contrary, I think converting College Green into a pedestrian square and having BXD would be fantastic. Also, if it was up to me, I would pedestrianise O'Connell Street when BXD is built and have both tracks on OCS. With MN, BXD and Du, there would be no need for buses on OCS.

oharach wrote: »

I agree about the need to have a clear picture of where we are going, but MN does need to go to SSG, because that is where it interchanges with the Interconnector, a massive trip generator

The only other place it could conceivably interchange with the Interconnector is Pearse, but that would all but rule out a later extension of Metro North to the South/Southwest of the city, which will happen eventually. There also wouldn't be enough interchange capacity at Pearse.

Either:
(1) Metro North is extended underground to Beechwood, where it surfaces and joins the Luas Green line, which is converted to Metro from that point. Luas BXD is probably curtailed to St Stephen's Green, but still provides important connections to the south city centre, Metro and Interconnector for passengers along the D section of the line.

Or:
(2) Metro North is extended southwest along a new route. Luas BXD remains as a single Luas line. The overlap with Metro North is small (1 stop on the Metro). Examples from other cities: Frankfurt – Konstablerwache – Hauptwache (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in parallel tunnels); Munich – Sendlinger Tor – Fraunhoferstraße (U-Bahn and Tram parallel; Munich – Hauptbahnhof – Karlsplatz (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in neighbouring tunnels).

Broadly speaking, those are the 2 options.

From Vision 2030;

Having the Green Line join MN is crazy because, if BXD is built, a large section of it is only replicating MN above ground. A better option would be to extend MN south-west (roughly Harolds Cross, Terenure, Rathfarnham). Yes the duplication still exists but you get two distinct north-south lines, Swords - Rathfarnham and Broombridge (future extension to Finglas) - Dundrum, both via the city centre, linking with two east-west lines (Luas Red and DU).

Aard · 08-04-2011 8:42pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Watch out for Leo taking a ministerial trip to Nice lads

While we're talking about Nice, they're currently doing enabling works for a partially underground east-west tramway. The tunnel will be about 3.5km long, even though there's plenty of space to put it at street level. This is about the same distance as Broadstone to Beechwood.

The difference between Nice and Dublin is not the politicians per se. In Nice, stuff just gets done. The mayor decided dog poop doesn't attract tourists, so no more dog poop on the streets. Mopeds are noisy and obtrusive, so no more mopeds. He wanted a tram system, he got one. The east-west line isn't going down the Promenade, not because there's not enough space, but that catenaries would be unsightly -- so it's going underground instead. There's a respect for the urban area that makes French city centres so appealing. And the people? By and large they don't care as long as their taxes are spent on things they'll actually use and not to line peoples pockets, and that it'll still cost them only €1 on the tram when it's all built. That's France for you!

dowlingm · 08-04-2011 9:44pm

I'd be slow to go in-ground power or battery if I could avoid it since every Line D or Line B tram expected to use it would have to be fitted and in the case of the former is guaranteed vendor lock-in. Before the crash it could have been sold as a vanity project to keep O Connell St sightlines clear but now the best you could hope for is interesting designs for the catenary poles.

Sponge Bob · 08-04-2011 10:15pm

dowlingm wrote: »

I'd be slow to go in-ground power or battery if I could avoid it since every Line D or Line B tram expected to use it would have to be fitted and in the case of the former is guaranteed vendor lock-in. .

Oh God no :eek: , not in-ground. :eek: The Dublin Skanger class living all along that line make it their lifes 'work' to jam it up with their baby buggies, chewing gum and high heels....probably all three together simultaneously and not forgetting our weather either.

Trying to feck with overhead will result in a Darwinianly correct outcome so leave them much that to play with!

The Nice trams have their batteries on the roof it seems, see here and they can run 1km with Aircon On! . I suspect a retrofit would be possible with existing Green Line trams in future. I would certainly ask Citadis for a guesstimate.

Bit of a long but good essay on options points out here that a Tramways Act 1870 may prohibit the Citadis on ground option anyway

But I would consider the battery model for Trinity and maybe O Connell St afterwards with pantagraph up in Westmoreland Street.

Alternatively a Green Line type of tram, the 402 , has been retrofitted with supercapacitors insted of batteries but I don't know their range or how it went. Again they went on the roof.

A bank of 48 supercapacitor modules installed on the roof of the tram will store energy regenerated during braking, and can also be topped up from the overhead wire in 20 sec during station dwell times. This allows the vehicle to run between stops without using the catenary. During the test runs, conducted under commercial operating conditions, the vehicle will operate with its pantograph lowered on two sections of T3: Georges Brassens - Porte Brancion and Porte de Choisy - Porte d’Italie. A ‘rapid-charging station’ has also been installed at Lucotte depot.

According to Alstom, the supercapacitor technology will ‘support operations in partially-autonomous mode’, avoiding the need to install catenary at complex junctions, on bridges or in front of public buildings. It will also allow wire-free operation in depot areas. Operation in ‘fully-autonomous mode’ would be possible with the use of ‘boost chargers’ at the stops. The STEEM partners believe that building new lines without catenary could reduce investment costs, as well as ‘optimising integration into the urban landscape’.

Siemens also sell low floor trams and have tested their Energy storage systems too and Bombardier flogged a few of theirs only this week, see here but appear to store off braking operations not run across catenery less sections.

namloc1980 · 08-04-2011 10:51pm

dowlingm wrote: »

I'd be slow to go in-ground power or battery if I could avoid it since every Line D or Line B tram expected to use it would have to be fitted and in the case of the former is guaranteed vendor lock-in. Before the crash it could have been sold as a vanity project to keep O Connell St sightlines clear but now the best you could hope for is interesting designs for the catenary poles.

The Bordeaux system looks class without the catenaries but I remember reading the cost of putting the power into a 3rd rail costs 3 times more than conventional overhead lines. I've also been to Nice and it really does make the system a lot less obtrusive if the lines can be done without. College Green and O'Connell St should be catenary free but the cost is probably prohibitive.

DWCommuter · 08-04-2011 11:26pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Having a clear picture of the future of the green line is key here.

If it gets metro-ised and joined to Metro North, then BXD becomes largely redundant.

And likewise, if the Green line ends up as a tram line coupled to BXD, then why does MN need to go towards SSG at all? It could go to one of the mainline stations, for example.

The point is, ironing out this fuzzy double vision is essential if we want the best results.

That fuzzy double vision stems from the conception/implementation of Luas in the first place. Originally it was an overground connection under the previous FG lead Government. In opposition Bertie Ahearn was on Dail record as stating that if in Government, FF would not dig up the streets of the city centre for luas. They would go underground. Upon entering Government they commissioned a "study", lost out on EU funding and ended up with two unconnected lines on the premise of a Metro being built at a later stage that included an upgrade of the Green line. That is why the Green line was built to a slightly different value.

However, the unconnected luas lines have more value to commuters as a mode of transport, if connected. Somewhere along the line the "gap" was converted to a Metro and we set out on the quest to build MN. The entire metro concept was born out of the argument of underground or overground for the original luas plans in the city centre.

Sponge Bob · 08-04-2011 11:32pm

Ultracapacitors seem to make sense where electricity is expensive, eg in Ireland. They appear to charge mainly under braking so the station location is vital because braking into it generates most of the charge for the 'battery' operated section. They last a lot longer than batteries too.

http://www.spin-project.eu/index.php?node_id=58.69&lang_id=1

Advantages
Since the braking energy is stored and reused, consumption of electrical energy is reduced to minimum. In some applications energy saving is up to 30%...50%. The system not only saves money but also helps to cut peak demands of electricity during load acceleration or peak demand (e.g. during charging battery of electric vehicle). In UPS applications the system can reduce production losses and increase yield.

The ultracapacitor doesn’t have moving and maintenance requiring parts like flywheel accumulator. In comparison with electrochemical batteries, the number of loading and emptying cycles is approximately 1000 times higher reaching million complete loading and emptying cycles. In addition to that, ultracapacitors are maintenance-free and the guaranteed lifetime in storage device reaches 25 years.

So if this approach is to be used along with overhead it must be decided on BEFORE the detailed design is undertaken. It is rather new and postdates the middle of the last decade by and large when BX was originally sketched out.

If yor wanna be really clever you discharge up across the catenary to other trams when you don't need the juice....and they do. I don't think the RPA are overendowed with creative electrical engineers somehow but Dublin does have the software engineering capability to write the control systems

It all makes for what is called a smart economy ...elsewhere.

dowlingm · 09-04-2011 6:43pm

Sponge Bob

Bombardier are already offering trams with their capacitor system:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/mitrac-energy-saver

but I don't know what the cost premium is or how limited the wireless operation area is. My concern would be what if one tram has to push another out of a wireless area - might not be enough power to move both depending on the situation.

Jack Noble · 09-04-2011 8:41pm

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

DU is by far the most important project which will deliver the most benefits for Dublin.

And because it has a much longer construction period, the funding can be allocated over a much longer period.

Metro North can and should be kept on ice and the bond market/PPP situation monitored until it becomes favourable. Also, if the the govt really waqnts to proceed with MN, it should seek 100% PPP funding and offer attractive repayment/operation terms to private sector over the longer term, 40 to 50 years instead of 25 - with equally attractive buyout terms for the State after 10, 20, 30 years, etc.

It should also be considered lumping Metro North and West together in such a contract. With DU aleady built by the State, then MN/MW should prove more attractive. Govt should also consider the MN-Green line integration as part of this contract - PPP consortium build MN to SSG and get it running and then move on to extend tunnel to Ranelagh without disrupting MN service.

If DU can be built by State/CIE followed by MN/MW by PPP, then the State can later progress the planned Luas projects, Lucan F, BXD, BXD2 to Finglas, Poolbeg extensions, etc, when the

Under no circumstances should Luas BXD be chosed ahead of Dart or Metro. If it is, it will signal the end for both and victory for political expediency over the correct, long-term policy planning.

While some may see the current situation re MN/DU as the end for both, I see this as an opportunity for govt to get things right despite the current financial situation - if they decide to build Dart first followed by putting out a new Metro PPP tender when the economy begins to recover in three or four years and our debt situation has stabilised and we are no longer such a big risk for international investors.

Regarding Leo's kite re 50 to 100 year lease/100% private sector funding for Metro, maybe the Minister should give Cormac Rabbitt of the Mitsui Dublin Metro and Dargan Project a call. After all, he believes such a system could be self-funding.

Chose Dart Underground, Leo - and then offer Metro North and West, with Green Line integration/extension to Rabbitt to put together a new consortium to finance, build and operate for 40 or 50 years.

That's my thoughts on the matter. I will also post this in the Dart Underground Delayed thread to get the debate going.

lods · 09-04-2011 9:17pm

Jack Noble wrote: »

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

DU is by far the most important project which will deliver the most benefits for Dublin.

And because it has a much longer construction period, the funding can be allocated over a much longer period.

Metro North can and should be kept on ice and the bond market/PPP situation monitored until it becomes favourable. Also, if the the govt really waqnts to proceed with MN, it should seek 100% PPP funding and offer attractive repayment/operation terms to private sector over the longer term, 40 to 50 years instead of 25 - with equally attractive buyout terms for the State after 10, 20, 30 years, etc.

It should also be considered lumping Metro North and West together in such a contract. With DU aleady built by the State, then MN/MW should prove more attractive. Govt should also consider the MN-Green line integration as part of this contract - PPP consortium build MN to SSG and get it running and then move on to extend tunnel to Ranelagh without disrupting MN service.

If DU can be built by State/CIE followed by MN/MW by PPP, then the State can later progress the planned Luas projects, Lucan F, BXD, BXD2 to Finglas, Poolbeg extensions, etc, when the

Under no circumstances should Luas BXD be chosed ahead of Dart or Metro. If it is, it will signal the end for both and victory for political expediency over the correct, long-term policy planning.

While some may see the current situation re MN/DU as the end for both, I see this as an opportunity for govt to get things right despite the current financial situation - if they decide to build Dart first followed by putting out a new Metro PPP tender when the economy begins to recover in three or four years and our debt situation has stabilised and we are no longer such a big risk for international investors.

Regarding Leo's kite re 50 to 100 year lease/100% private sector funding for Metro, maybe the Minister should give Cormac Rabbitt of the Mitsui Dublin Metro and Dargan Project a call. After all, he believes such a system could be self-funding.

Chose Dart Underground, Leo - and then offer Metro North and West, with Green Line integration/extension to Rabbitt to put together a new consortium to finance, build and operate for 40 or 50 years.

That's my thoughts on the matter. I will also post this in the Dart Underground Delayed thread to get the debate going.

Maybe its the wine , but that makes sense jack:eek:

DWCommuter · 09-04-2011 10:27pm

lods wrote: »

Maybe its the wine , but that makes sense jack:eek:

Yes it makes some kind of sense alright, but alas I'm not convinced this is what could transpire. I'm so sorry for being the eternally bleak contributor here, but even over the course of the complete DU project the costs are still very substantial and I'm still convinced that Irish politicians aren't brave enough to step up to plate re the biggest public transport investment in the history of the state. (MN or DU)

Its interesting to see that despite the differences in planning, it appears that both projects may be back on an even footing, but this only goes to prove that our Government have lost interest in them due to the cost. A luas link up looks the likely winner if any.

Zebra3 · 10-04-2011 1:13am

Jack Noble wrote: »

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

"MUST" as in you hope or you think that's what he will go for?

I think BXD is on the cards. It looks like something for Dublin (except to a tiny minority who understand transport) and it keeps the "Dublin get everything" brigade from foaming at the mouth over perceived big spending in a recession.

The more I follow this, the less I understand how the DART ever got started in the 80s.

dynamick · 10-04-2011 1:35am

Jack Noble wrote: »

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

Where is the money to finance DU? I guess DU will be in the same cost region as MN (2.5b). It can't be built with the available funds, no more than MN can be built.

A drawback of DU is that it doesn't create many new catchment areas but instead intensifies the use in areas already served by rail. Politicians may prefer projects that spread benefits to more people - even if the net benefit is lower.

Here is my guess for what will happen:
BXD will be built but the elements of MN that need to be built before BXD will be done first. Basic metro station boxes will be built at SSG, OC Bridge, Parnell Street. Services diversion on Grafton Street, Westmoreland st & OCS will be carried out.

BXD will open but MN can still be built later. The plan for MN was to create stations first and tunnel through the station boxes with the TBM like stringing beads. So the stations can be connected at a later date.

BXD price hasn't been released but I am guessing it's in the mid hundreds of millions and that it assumes that services diversion on OCS has been done as part of MN. If we're lucky, the EIB will agree to part finance the project (500m) with the state paying the balance (600m?)

The result would be a big visible 'Luas interconnector' project that should have high ridership from day yet doesn't require a PPP and doesn't prevent MN from being built later.

oharach · 10-04-2011 10:13am

dynamick wrote: »

Here is my guess for what will happen:
BXD will be built but the elements of MN that need to be built before BXD will be done first. Basic metro station boxes will be built at SSG, OC Bridge, Parnell Street. Services diversion on Grafton Street, Westmoreland st & OCS will be carried out.

I don't think that's likely. Can you imagine the cost per kilometre figures uninformed journalists would come up with for the cost of Luas BX if it included digging stations at SSG and Parnell St and building a station under the Liffey?! This option also involves all the disruption that people have complained about, namely:

a. digging up part of the Green
b. bus disruption in Westmoreland St/OCS
c. potentially harmful vibrations at the Rotunda

with NONE of the corresponding benefit of the Metro at the end of it all. After that much disruption for a pathetic 2km tram, there would be no public appetite left for Metro North, even if it was explained that there would be minimal disruption.

Pete_Cavan · 10-04-2011 10:36am

oharach wrote: »

I don't think that's likely. Can you imagine the cost per kilometre figures uninformed journalists would come up with for the cost of Luas BX if it included digging stations at SSG and Parnell St and building a station under the Liffey?! This option also involves all the disruption that people have complained about, namely:

a. digging up part of the Green
b. bus disruption in Westmoreland St/OCS
c. potentially harmful vibrations at the Rotunda

with NONE of the corresponding benefit of the Metro at the end of it all. After that much disruption for a pathetic 2km tram, there would be no public appetite left for Metro North, even if it was explained that there would be minimal disruption.

I agree, the cost and disrupt that would be caused is not worth the relatively modest benefits that BXD offer. The two luas lines are not that far apart really. BXD should only be built after MN when it can be built at a much lower cost. IMO DU has to be the one Leo builds, it may not open up new areas to the network but will make the most of the existing infrastructure. And, as I have said before, with DU built it will greatly strengthen the case for MN to be built also. If MN is built first there will be no appetite to spend another couple of billion on another tunnel, whereas with DU, and the benefit it will bring for commuter and intercity trains, MN will be a lot more attractive. That is the only way we will get both build in the next ten years.

Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

Comments