Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
24567…314

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    That is kinda impossible unless the EIB makes the same offer to all consortia, otherwise the court cases and damages would be only shockin bud!

    We agree overall Cool but the mechanism to inject these funds into existing tenders has to be equitable. I reckon the NPRF will match them up as well.


  • Options
    #33
    Enbee
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭Enbee


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Indeed. It would be nice to have a north-south "Metro" spine, with some services running all the way, some from Airport-St.Stephen's Green and som from St.Stephen's Green-Cherrywood.

    Of course, if we'd had proper planning, this would've been done from the start. But alas, an awkward and expensive Green Line upgrade would be needed to make this happen, along with some fairly redundant stops (Harcourt doesn't need Luas and Metro tbh).

    Harcourt doesn't need both (*if current passenger numbers are any indication) but it is currently a stop so an overlap with a Metro stop would make sense so MN and Luas would have two or three interchanges. I can imagine the melee we might see at St. Stephen's Green if large numbers of passengers have to change from one line to the other. Or will passenger numbers never be high enough?


  • Options
    #34
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Of course, the other big project which has been mooted at about a billion (prob realistically around €1.5 billion) is DART Underground. Now THAT offers value for money that Metro North will never be able to compete with.

    I don't want to get into another flame war over this - I think most of us have accepted that both DU and MN are required to grow Dublin properly. The constant attacking and sniping of MN by DU fanboys is growing tiring - MN does something DU can't - it adds train coverage to huge swathes of the city and it's suburbs.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Harcourt doesn't need Luas and Metro tbh

    Of all the parts of the city (ignoring interchanges), surely the CBD is the one area that couldn't have enough public transport!?


  • Options
    #35
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,955 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    This is all good news about MN, which seems a sure thing now.

    As for Harcourt St, I don't think people are suggesting that it will have 2 transport options. The way it will/should work is that MN will continue underground from Stephen's Green. The next stop will be Ranelagh underground where passengers can change to Luas Green Line. The next stop will be somewhere to the southwest of that, etc.

    The Luas Green line section from Ranelegh-Harcourt-Stephen's Green will *not* be decommissioned. This was the original plan but it's clear that it can't happen now.


  • Options
    #36
    Enbee
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭Enbee


    spacetweek wrote: »
    As for Harcourt St, I don't think people are suggesting that it will have 2 transport options. The way it will/should work is that MN will continue underground from Stephen's Green. The next stop will be Ranelagh underground where passengers can change to Luas Green Line. The next stop will be somewhere to the southwest of that, etc.

    Those two are some distance apart. I'd imagine a MN station somewhere in the vicinity of the Harcourt and Charlemont stops would be desirable.

    Given that the speed of the service takes off after the canal I'd rather see the doubling up cease there and have the MN line veer west of Ranelagh.
    spacetweek wrote: »
    The Luas Green line section from Ranelegh-Harcourt-Stephen's Green will *not* be decommissioned. This was the original plan but it's clear that it can't happen now.

    Better to extend it further into the CBD.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Yixian
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Yixian


    Enbee wrote: »
    Harcourt doesn't need both (*if current passenger numbers are any indication) but it is currently a stop so an overlap with a Metro stop would make sense so MN and Luas would have two or three interchanges. I can imagine the melee we might see at St. Stephen's Green if large numbers of passengers have to change from one line to the other. Or will passenger numbers never be high enough?

    To be honest they should aim to take the Luas line underground just as it gets to SSG station, and allow passengers to switch from MN/DARTu onto the Luas whilst remaining underground.

    Far more sensible even if it requires a little extra work - really hope they do this.

    And if they can do it for all the other stations that meet the Luas that'd be ideal.


  • Options
    #38
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,244 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Yeah but as certain loony posters loudly trilled....it is a ppp and will not cost €500m in any given year. So what is the €500m for ???
    Well, who is the EIB giving the money to? Is it the winning consortium or the government? The government does need some money to cover design, supervision, land acquisition, compensation, etc. If it goes to the consortium, its money they don't need to come up with themselves, thereby reducing their borrowing requirements and potentially reducing their need to load the project to make a profit.
    markpb wrote: »
    I don't want to get into another flame war over this - I think most of us have accepted that both DU and MN are required to grow Dublin properly. The constant attacking and sniping of MN by DU fanboys is growing tiring - MN does something DU can't - it adds train coverage to huge swathes of the city and it's suburbs.
    Did you get that the wrong way around. :pac:

    If they wanted to be inventive, MN could come up through the Iveagh Gardens and connect at Adelaide Road. It might require alterations to the road though.


  • Options
    #39
    Enbee
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭Enbee


    Yixian wrote: »
    To be honest they should aim to take the Luas line underground just as it gets to SSG station, and allow passengers to switch from MN/DARTu onto the Luas whilst remaining underground.

    Far more sensible even if it requires a little extra work - really hope they do this.

    It would be good if the line terminated there but I can't see it happening if it means the station would need to be even larger.

    As it is I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a fuss made over the potential disruption (and fear of damage) to the green. That said I don't live in Dublin anymore so I barely even have a toe in the water.


  • Options
    #40
    Yixian
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Yixian


    I doubt much permanent damage will be done - it will be an absolute mess during construction but I think they have actually agreed to improve the green beyond even it's current state after it's finished.


  • Options
    #41
    dRNk SAnTA
    Registered Users Posts: 777 ✭✭✭dRNk SAnTA


    Why is it that there are ticket stiles in the underground stations, but the outer stations will be open platforms? Is that to prevent begging/anti social behaviour in the underground stations?

    Also, have we seen any details about how passengers will switch between Metro North and Dart Underground lines @ Stephens Green? Last I heard, they were going to have some form of stairs/steps?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    dRNk SAnTA wrote: »
    Also, have we seen any details about how passengers will switch between Metro North and Dart Underground lines @ Stephens Green? Last I heard, they were going to have some form of stairs/steps?

    ...yep, I think a lift and stairway is the plan - although Stephens Green Station will be deep, the Metro North will pass just above the Dart Underground, so there won't be a big difference between the level of the MN and DU platforms.

    Regards!


  • Options
    #43
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,955 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    dRNk SAnTA wrote: »
    Why is it that there are ticket stiles in the underground stations, but the outer stations will be open platforms? Is that to prevent begging/anti social behaviour in the underground stations?
    Are they doing that? Good, cause it's 100% essential not to have open access underground stations. They'd be overrun with thugs within a week. The outdoor stations have more passive security.


  • Options
    #44
    smokingman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭smokingman


    I'd love if any of this happened but call me pesimistic, it'll probably get canned.

    Anyone know anything that'll happily put me straight?


  • Options
    #45
    Yixian
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭Yixian


    smokingman wrote: »
    I'd love if any of this happened but call me pesimistic, it'll probably get canned.

    Anyone know anything that'll happily put me straight?

    Most of the money for both MN and DARTu is secured and the project is well underway, the only obstacle is ABP causing pointless delays but what's new.

    These projects are 100% going to happen.


  • Options
    #46
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Yixian wrote: »
    Most of the money for both MN and DARTu is secured and the project is well underway, the only obstacle is ABP causing pointless delays but what's new.

    These projects are 100% going to happen.


    Source?

    Both projects are planned as PPPs. So their construction is dependent on suuccessful tenders being able to raise the capital to foot the construction bill. Add to that the Irish Governments ability to commit to repayments over 30 years. The DART Underground will be the biggest achilles heel in that it will be used by a semi state company that is already subsidised to the tune of 300million per annum. Adding the PPPs payments to that will not sit well with the bean counters in the DoF.

    While the idea of a PPP looks good on paper as opposed to up front funding of the projects, its still a massive financial committment. So you see ABP is not holding up anything as the ultimate decision has not yet been made by the Government.

    And speaking of PPPs, I draw your attention to this thread.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055862095


  • Options
    #47
    smokingman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Yixian wrote: »
    Most of the money for both MN and DARTu is secured and the project is well underway, the only obstacle is ABP causing pointless delays but what's new.

    These projects are 100% going to happen.

    What's ABP?
    So when's the first sod turned?


  • Options
    #48
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    markpb wrote: »
    I don't want to get into another flame war over this - I think most of us have accepted that both DU and MN are required to grow Dublin properly. The constant attacking and sniping of MN by DU fanboys is growing tiring - MN does something DU can't - it adds train coverage to huge swathes of the city and it's suburbs.

    Well I haven't seen many DU fanboys, because most of the support seems to be for MN.

    Those of us who know better though, know that DART Underground is the most criticial of all transport infrastructure projects. Now, this doesn't mean MN is useless or anything. It does have a purpose, it will be beneficial.

    But it was also reputed to cost 5 billion euro at one point. And when you're spending money like that, you have to ask yourself, can you get more bang for your buck with 5 billion euro than an underground tramline that ends in a field? You have to ask, are there other ways we can provide a northern connection or an airport connection? Should it be a DART Line?

    I think for 5 billion euro, there were less expensive methods that could have been used that would provide more, but I can accept the current project if the final tender doesn't exceed 2.3 billion, and the private sector carries the vast majority of the risk (we shouldn't be forking out for cost overruns for example).

    For 2.3 billion or less, an underground tram/metro providing 19 km of new line and an airport connection is certainly worth it. For 5 billion? I'm not so sure.

    Either way if it's to go ahead, it's the current proposal that's going to go ahead, so other possible alternatives are all speculative. My own preference would be to build MN as a DART Line - branch off the Northern Line (possibly provide a connection through Swords), through the Airport (with turnback facilities provided nearby) and ending at St.Stephen's Green. We could've had Belfast-Dublin Airport-City Centre connections that way, and turn Dublin Airport into a real transport hub. Of course this would also require four-tracking of the northern line which would add significant expense. But combine this with the Interconnector proposal and turn it into an overall "DART Revamp" proposal and using the same contractor, you could get an economy of scale I reckon that would bring the price tag in under 8 billion, maybe 9 billion in 2007. In these times, it's easy to see it being under 7 billion. I think you get a lot more out of that proposal then an underground tram that doesn't really connect with anything else.


  • Options
    #49
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    can you get more bang for your buck with 5 billion euro than an underground tramline that ends in a field?

    It will end at a massive P&R facility - something this city lacks and something Irish Rail have made no attempt to build.
    My own preference would be to build MN as a DART Line - branch off the Northern Line (possibly provide a connection through Swords), through the Airport (with turnback facilities provided nearby) and ending at St.Stephen's Green. [...] I think you get a lot more out of that proposal then an underground tram that doesn't really connect with anything else.

    I know you understand the MN project very well so I don't understand why you come out with this stuff. What you're proposing is a very limited spur which serves two new parts of Dublin and provides almost no network expansion. Metro North serves all of central and north Dublin, a hospital and two universities. It connects with *every other* rail line in the city. What would you like it to connect with that it won't?

    Ultimately, people don't use public transport in Dublin because of the poor perception of Dublin Bus and the limited coverage that the existing rail lines provide. If you beef up the Dart line, you won't gain many new customers because the people who currently aren't served by rail, still won't be served by rail. It will attract a few by virtue of serving more of the city centre and it will improve the service for existing customers but that's all.


  • Options
    #50
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    I know you understand the MN project very well so I don't understand why you come out with this stuff. What you're proposing is a very limited spur which serves two new parts of Dublin and provides almost no network expansion. Metro North serves all of central and north Dublin, a hospital and two universities. It connects with *every other* rail line in the city. What would you like it to connect with that it won't?

    I should've been more "explicit" when I said "connect", I meant... physically connect, as in track, rolling stock etc. I apologize for that. I am well aware there are DART connections at Drumcondra and St.Stephen's Green.

    My proposal would still connect most of those places. It's essentially most of the MN line just with a northern line connection and build to DART standard.

    The track curvature might have to be slightly altered, and to save money you could get rid of Dardisdown stop perhaps, but all other stops south of Swords would still be place. The major alteration comes north of Swords. Yes, perhaps supply a Swords stop, but that's it, after that, tie it into the northern line. There is absolutely no need to the line to go north of swords. Those stations were justified using projected ridiculous population growth predictions and development patterns which are obviously not going to happen now.

    Combine this with quad-tracking and the northern line, and what do you get?

    - 90% of the benefits of Metro North. The airport connection, the central city connection, a Swords connection along with all the new patronage that would bring.

    Along with

    - countless new possibilities for routes including City Centre-Airport-Belfast.
    - Airport connection to the mainline
    - use of the same rolling stock and traction means less depot facilities are needed i.e better physical integration
    - higher capacity
    - the possibility of turning Dublin Airport into a transport hub


  • Options
    #51
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I should've been more "explicit" when I said "connect", I meant... physically connect, as in track, rolling stock etc.

    The only reason you'd want to physically connect is to add more route options (which make it more confusing for passengers) and to reduce the cost of maintaining several depots. There's no reason why the MN and Luas or MN and Dart couldn't use the same gauge and depots (other than the RPA's anti-IR bias).
    My proposal would still connect most of those places. It's essentially most of the MN line just with a northern line connection and build to DART standard.

    Unless I misread your post I can't see how your Dart proposal could serve any more of the city centre, Drumcondra, the Mater, Glasnevin, Whitehall, Santry, DCU or Ballymun. All it does it serve the airport and bits of Swords. I agree with you on the routing north of the airport though but only if the P&R facility would be retained.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Vuctor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭Vuctor


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I should've been more "explicit" when I said "connect", I meant... physically connect, as in track, rolling stock etc. I apologize for that. I am well aware there are DART connections at Drumcondra and St.Stephen's Green.

    My proposal would still connect most of those places. It's essentially most of the MN line just with a northern line connection and build to DART standard.

    The track curvature might have to be slightly altered, and to save money you could get rid of Dardisdown stop perhaps, but all other stops south of Swords would still be place. The major alteration comes north of Swords. Yes, perhaps supply a Swords stop, but that's it, after that, tie it into the northern line. There is absolutely no need to the line to go north of swords. Those stations were justified using projected ridiculous population growth predictions and development patterns which are obviously not going to happen now.

    Combine this with quad-tracking and the northern line, and what do you get?

    - 90% of the benefits of Metro North. The airport connection, the central city connection, a Swords connection along with all the new patronage that would bring.

    Along with

    - countless new possibilities for routes including City Centre-Airport-Belfast.
    - Airport connection to the mainline
    - use of the same rolling stock and traction means less depot facilities are needed i.e better physical integration
    - higher capacity
    - the possibility of turning Dublin Airport into a transport hub

    naive and fanciful.
    a metro line is for 150/200 years.

    you underestimate the rate of change in the world. It's the M50 1st version mindset all over again.

    Everywhere along the MN line will be a prime development locality.

    In 20 years time Swords will be a major metropolis (thanks to MN)and the whole MN project a magnet for inward development.

    Some of the earliest London Tube lines (District) were built through green fields.

    If you're even suggesting like the crazed Frank McDonald that the plan should be redone now you'll end up with nothing as nothing significant will be built for a long time given current conditions and Oirish age of the universe planning epochs.


  • Options
    #53
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    markpb wrote: »
    The only reason you'd want to physically connect is to add more route options (which make it more confusing for passengers) and to reduce the cost of maintaining several depots. There's no reason why the MN and Luas or MN and Dart couldn't use the same gauge and depots (other than the RPA's anti-IR bias).

    I don't think with good schematics, integrated timetabling and integrated ticketing it would be confusing. It would be beneficial more likely. You would have a lot more flexibility with routes and give people much more choice than ever before.
    Unless I misread your post I can't see how your Dart proposal could serve any more of the city centre, Drumcondra, the Mater, Glasnevin, Whitehall, Santry, DCU or Ballymun. All it does it serve the airport and bits of Swords. I agree with you on the routing north of the airport though but only if the P&R facility would be retained.

    My proposal would be to build the MN line to DART standards from St.Stephen's Green through the Airport, through Swords and then tie into the northern line. It would use the same stops as MN, as it would follow the same route (with allowances made for track curvature of course). The major difference in route is the possible elimination of Dardistown (to save costs both on the station and tunelling) and the elimination of the part north of Swords.

    So in other words, you still get those crucial city centre, university, ballymun etc. stops, you still get the airport link, but the delta link with the northern line would open up a whole new web of possibilities. If this wasn't clear from the above two posts I apologize. :)

    Far more bang for your buck I think.

    In any case though, this is all speculation as it's never going to happen, just my dreams of what could have been.


  • Options
    #54
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Vuctor wrote: »
    naive and fanciful.
    a metro line is for 150/200 years.

    Re-read my other posts and read my latest post.
    In 20 years time Swords will be a major metropolis (thanks to MN)and the whole MN project a magnet for inward development.

    No it won't. Where on Earth is the evidence for this?
    If you're even suggesting like the crazed Frank McDonald that the plan should be redone now you'll end up with nothing as nothing significant will be built for a long time given current conditions and Oirish age of the universe planning epochs.

    I'm not suggesting this, I said it was speculation.


  • Options
    #55
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    My proposal would be to build the MN line to DART standards from St.Stephen's Green through the Airport, through Swords and then tie into the northern line. It would use the same stops as MN, as it would follow the same route (with allowances made for track curvature of course). The major difference in route is the possible elimination of Dardistown (to save costs both on the station and tunelling) and the elimination of the part north of Swords.

    So in other words, you still get those crucial city centre, university, ballymun etc. stops, you still get the airport link, but the delta link with the northern line would open up a whole new web of possibilities. If this wasn't clear from the above two posts I apologize. :)

    Far more bang for your buck I think.

    In any case though, this is all speculation as it's never going to happen, just my dreams of what could have been.

    Its not a bad idea at all. But the states insistance on creating the RPA (probably due to a distrust of CIE) always meant that a new broom would make a clean sweep, hence the evolution of the Metro North specs.


  • Options
    #56
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Building Metro North as a DART line would be much more expensive - it would require much, much bigger stations, and larger tunnels.


  • Options
    #57
    eia340600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭eia340600


    Yixian wrote: »
    Most of the money for both MN and DARTu is secured and the project is well underway.

    Where do you get this stuff from..."The project is well underway"...A few holes in the ground of SSG and O'CS means nothing...Look how advanced the plans for spencer dock and countless other developments were allowed to get..They poured the foundations for the Watchtower, for God sake!!!...I won't believe it until the boring machines are in the ground.


  • Options
    #58
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Its not a bad idea at all. But the states insistance on creating the RPA (probably due to a distrust of CIE) always meant that a new broom would make a clean sweep, hence the evolution of the Metro North specs.

    Yeah. That's where this idea falls apart.
    Cool Mo D wrote:
    Building Metro North as a DART line would be much more expensive - it would require much, much bigger stations, and larger tunnels.

    It would certainly add a moderate amount of cost.

    Which is why I would hope some of that cost would be offset by not building any stations north of Swords (gets rid of two expensive elevated sections and a retained cut section) and by eliminating the Dardistown station and tunnelling straight from Northwood to the airport (you may even get rid of that station as well). By combining it with the overall Interconnector project, you'd get an economy of scale over both projects, as the some of the resources could be shared. That would bring the cost down as well. The shared maintainence, rolling stock, signalling, electricity systems etc. would also bring overall costs down.


  • Options
    #59
    Heartbreak Hank
    Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭Heartbreak Hank


    How close does DART run to the proposed Metro line? Is there any possibility of a spur on the Metro so DART users don't have to go all the way into the city to come out to the Airport again? Is there a provision for something similar to the proposed LUAS connection with DART north of Bray?


  • Options
    #60
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Heartbreak Hank wrote: »
    How close does DART run to the proposed Metro line? Is there any possibility of a spur on the Metro so DART users don't have to go all the way into the city to come out to the Airport again? Is there a provision for something similar to the proposed LUAS connection with DART north of Bray?

    It would be easier to have a DART spur to the airport instead. I e-mailed IE about it and they said they have no plans to do so. Their response was simply that Metro North provides an airport connection.

    I doubt the RPA have any plans to build a Metro Spur anytime soon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Heartbreak Hank wrote: »
    How close does DART run to the proposed Metro line? Is there any possibility of a spur on the Metro so DART users don't have to go all the way into the city to come out to the Airport again? Is there a provision for something similar to the proposed LUAS connection with DART north of Bray?

    The Metro runs quite close to the Northern Line at Donabate. A short extension of the Metro would reach it.

    Extending the DART to the airport has some serious drawbacks. The main one is that it would require 4-tracking of the line out of Connolly to keep current services north of the airport. All stations on the line would need rebuilding, and demolition of houses adjoining the line would probably have to be done, along with serious disruption to DARTs during construction.

    This would be nice to do anyway - but I don't think it would be cheaper then the Metro.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement