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

Vuctor · 24-03-2010 6:58pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

Yeah. That's where this idea falls apart.

It would certainly add a moderate amount of cost.

No it wouldn't. Where on earth did you come up with that idea?

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.

Rewriting history or maybe you never heard.
DOF were strongly against MN. DOT wanted a joined up system inc. the IC so costs had to be saved.
But beyond that, there's an army out there saying the projected 30m p.a. pax for MN is unachievable.
They are still crying about CBAs and saying they were doctored.
In that climate proposing a DART to the Airport from SSG was not realistic.

You are just making things up as you go along.

BluntGuy · 24-03-2010 7:09pm

Vuctor wrote: »

They are still crying about CBAs and saying they were doctored.
In that climate proposing a DART to the Airport from SSG was not realistic.

I'm sorry but tunnelling is expensive whatever you choose to shove in the tunnels, be them trains, trams and lorries, so you should get the maximum out of your investment. I don't believe for 5 billion, MN is the most you can get. Maybe for 2 billion it's a good deal, for 5 billion, nope.

Instead of ending Metro North in a field, you would tie it into the Northern Line as DART. This might add a little bit of expense to the project but it would also open up a whole new web of route opportunities which would allow for many more passengers.

Metro North was politically interfered with, that's why the Route Selection is as is, not because the DOF mandated anything, not because the DOT recommended anything, but because certain politicians wanted a Metro going a certain way.

The original Transport for Dublin plan, I think back in 2001 or 2003, not sure when actually recommended a DART link to the airport from the Northern Line, of course that was scrapped when political interference came along. I'll find you the map that shows this.

I would have my doubts about 30 mil p.a.x. mainly because passenger figures are based on unrealistic population and development trends that may be true in la-la-land Celtic bubbleville Ireland, but aren't true now.

Vuctor · 24-03-2010 8:28pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

I'm sorry but tunnelling is expensive whatever you choose to shove in the tunnels, be them trains, trams and lorries, so you should get the maximum out of your investment. I don't believe for 5 billion, MN is the most you can get. Maybe for 2 billion it's a good deal, for 5 billion, nope.

Instead of ending Metro North in a field, you would tie it into the Northern Line as DART. This might add a little bit of expense to the project but it would also open up a whole new web of route opportunities which would allow for many more passengers.

Metro North was politically interfered with, that's why the Route Selection is as is, not because the DOF mandated anything, not because the DOT recommended anything, but because certain politicians wanted a Metro going a certain way.

The original Transport for Dublin plan, I think back in 2001 or 2003, not sure when actually recommended a DART link to the airport from the Northern Line, of course that was scrapped when political interference came along. I'll find you the map that shows this.

I would have my doubts about 30 mil p.a.x. mainly because passenger figures are based on unrealistic population and development trends that may be true in la-la-land Celtic bubbleville Ireland, but aren't true now.

MN will not cost 5 billion. The tenders are well below 2 billion. I can tell you that with certainty.

The route selection was not interferred with politically. The selected route is the only sensible one.

Paranoid and making it up as well.

You make another nonsense point. If 30 million pax is unrealistic then why would a DART line be needed from SSG? at more expense.

You have a childish grasp of transport economics and the potential for growth particularly along the MN route through the key airport corridor.

dowlingm · 24-03-2010 8:30pm

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.

The tunnels would indeed probably be wider, but why would the stations be "much bigger"? The existing DART stock are 2-car sets which I thought was going to be the metro config?

Cool Mo D · 24-03-2010 8:49pm

dowlingm wrote: »

The tunnels would indeed probably be wider, but why would the stations be "much bigger"? The existing DART stock are 2-car sets which I thought was going to be the metro config?

Well, normal DART platforms are 200m long, while the metro ones are planned to be 90m. Metro config will basically be two Luases coupled. If you're not going to use full length DARTs, what's the advantage in paying for wider tunnels?

dowlingm · 24-03-2010 9:11pm

The 8100/8200 DARTs are 2-car per set. The 8500s are 4 car/set. Either way, only minor length additions would be required for a 4 vehicle DART-metro (8520 = 82.64m long + stopping variance), less if automatic mode was installed as part of a pre-metro refit. There would also be a change in that the platforms would be highfloor not lowfloor.

8520 DART specs from the manufacturer (PDF)

BluntGuy · 24-03-2010 10:03pm

Vuctor wrote: »

MN will not cost 5 billion. The tenders are well below 2 billion. I can tell you that with certainty.

Unless you are directly involved in the tendering process you cannot.

The route selection was not interferred with politically. The selected route is the only sensible one.

If Bertie you say so.

Paranoid and making it up as well.

An excellent counter-argument. :rolleyes:

You make another nonsense point. If 30 million pax is unrealistic then why would a DART line be needed from SSG? at more expense.

Because if you're going to build something so expensive, you should get the most out of your investment. My proposal doesn't concentrate on one narrow corridor with limited potential. It offers new connections and route opportunities that could beef up passenger numbers substantially.

You have a childish grasp of transport economics and the potential for growth particularly along the MN route through the key airport corridor.

You're the one who said Swords will be a "Metropolis" in 20 years time. :rolleyes:

I have a realistic grasp of transport economics. You're predicting ridiculous levels of growth that can only happen with an economic mega-bubble and either a mass contraceptive failure or mass immigration.

Vuctor · 24-03-2010 11:49pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

Unless you are directly involved in the tendering process you cannot.

If Bertie you say so.

An excellent counter-argument. :rolleyes:

Because if you're going to build something so expensive, you should get the most out of your investment. My proposal doesn't concentrate on one narrow corridor with limited potential. It offers new connections and route opportunities that could beef up passenger numbers substantially.

You're the one who said Swords will be a "Metropolis" in 20 years time. :rolleyes:

I have a realistic grasp of transport economics. You're predicting ridiculous levels of growth that can only happen with an economic mega-bubble and either a mass contraceptive failure or mass immigration.

where's your evidence that Bertie influenced the route?

The bloke down the pub, was it?

I know that bloke, he's an expert in everything. Apparently he knows that Elvis is alive and other impressive things...

Or maybe you have some other normal evidence that Bertie chose the route...........................

you're not making that up are you?

Would you have preferred that MN takes a detour from the Mater around Finglas or along Fairview en route to DCU/Ballymun so that our pub politicians wouldn't start whining it only went the direct route through Drumcondra 'cos Bertie lives there?

Your definition of 'realistic' grasp of transport economics seems to include a surprising talent for making it up as you go along.

You tell us that the projected PAX for MN of 30 million is doubtful - it's marvellous how you can do that without bothering about annoying studies but just by having a quick think...................

and then you want to build a DART line instead with a much higher capacity and to hell with the DOF who were arguing vehemently that we couldn't even afford MN.

But again, just by having a quick think you've seen through all their made up figures and you know better. You just know.
Who needs academics and economists when we have ....da da
Bluntguy.......

Sponge Bob · 25-03-2010 12:04am

What recently attracts all these obnoxious n00bs to this board to rant about Metro North in particular and everybody in the forum in general ....is it a new policy in the CIE bunker or something ????

BluntGuy · 25-03-2010 12:28am

Vuctor wrote: »

where's your evidence that Bertie influenced the route?

The bloke down the pub, was it?

I know that bloke, he's an expert in everything. Apparently he knows that Elvis is alive and other impressive things...

Or maybe you have some other normal evidence that Bertie chose the route...........................

you're not making that up are you?

Would you have preferred that MN takes a detour from the Mater around Finglas or along Fairview en route to DCU/Ballymun so that our pub politicians wouldn't start whining it only went the direct route through Drumcondra 'cos Bertie lives there?

Your definition of 'realistic' grasp of transport economics seems to include a surprising talent for making it up as you go along.

You tell us that the projected PAX for MN of 30 million is doubtful - it's marvellous how you can do that without bothering about annoying studies but just by having a quick think...................

and then you want to build a DART line instead with a much higher capacity and to hell with the DOF who were arguing vehemently that we couldn't even afford MN.

But again, just by having a quick think you've seen through all their made up figures and you know better. You just know.
Who needs academics and economists when we have ....da da
Bluntguy.......

Link me to a single study that backs up your claims.

Link me to solid evidence that Swords will be a "Metropolis". Please do, I'm dieing to see it.

Present solid evidence that the tenders are under 2 billion.

Present solid evidence that MN will carry 30 million pax.

I don't entertain vacuous rhetoric. You're the one making outrageous claims here.

That Bertie pushed for the current MN project is no big secret. That he would push for that rather odd looking curve to Drumcondra is no stretch of the imagination either.

But that is irrelevant; answer my questions, and please attempt to do so without the childish jibing, because it's making you look incredibly silly.

dRNk SAnTA · 25-03-2010 12:42am

Come on guys, people have been going around in circles with these arguments for years. Let's give it a rest.

At least now we have engineering drawings and all sorts of mock-ups available to look at, so could we please discuss what they're actually planning to build rather than argue about our fantasy alternatives.

D.L.R. · 25-03-2010 1:47am

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Come on guys, people have been going around in circles with these arguments for years. Let's give it a rest.

At least now we have engineering drawings and all sorts of mock-ups available to look at, so could we please discuss what they're actually planning to build rather than argue about our fantasy alternatives.

+1

DWCommuter · 25-03-2010 1:57am

D.L.R. wrote: »

+1

And Vuctor is an obvious trolling asshole, right?

Think about it.

BluntGuy · 25-03-2010 2:29am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

What recently attracts all these obnoxious n00bs to this board to rant about Metro North in particular and everybody in the forum in general ....is it a new policy in the CIE bunker or something ????

While we have been getting a lot of that, all new posters regardless of opinion should be given the benefit-of-the-doubt.

I don't mind opinion that sharply differs from mine or anyone else, I just don't like it being delivered with unnecessary abrasiveness.

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Come on guys, people have been going around in circles with these arguments for years. Let's give it a rest.

At least now we have engineering drawings and all sorts of mock-ups available to look at, so could we please discuss what they're actually planning to build rather than argue about our fantasy alternatives.

The discussion was simply an idea of mine, perhaps I went a little overboard in explaining it, but it still ties in with Metro North and offers scrutiny on the flaws of the existing proposal. However, I have acknowledged a large number of times it is only speculation. In the same way people debate whether WRC was the best option for the west, people are entitled to debate whether MN was the best option for North Dublin. It certainly won't change anything, but it's interesting none-the-less.

That said, a return to discussing the actual proposal might be in order.

Victor · 25-03-2010 3:17am

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?

Crowd control, especially if you have an incident.

Vuctor · 25-03-2010 8:51am

BluntGuy wrote: »

Link me to a single study that backs up your claims.

Link me to solid evidence that Swords will be a "Metropolis". Please do, I'm dieing to see it.

Present solid evidence that the tenders are under 2 billion.

Present solid evidence that MN will carry 30 million pax.

I don't entertain vacuous rhetoric. You're the one making outrageous claims here.

That Bertie pushed for the current MN project is no big secret. That he would push for that rather odd looking curve to Drumcondra is no stretch of the imagination either.

But that is irrelevant; answer my questions, and please attempt to do so without the childish jibing, because it's making you look incredibly silly.

Thanks for that luntGuy.

Which pub was it again that the bloke told you all that stuff?

BluntGuy · 25-03-2010 11:10am

Vuctor wrote: »

Thanks for that luntGuy.

Which pub was it again that the bloke told you all that stuff?

Answer my questions. I addressed your points, now you address mine: provide links to studies backing up your claims.

I want you to prove that Swords will be a Metropolis in 2030. I want you to present proof that the tenders came in under 2 billion - I'm sure we'd all be delighted if that's the case, but if you're going to claim that, provide evidence. Until you can do that, this discussion is quite frankly over.

Vuctor · 25-03-2010 11:23am

BluntGuy wrote: »

Answer my questions. I addressed your points, now you address mine: provide links to studies backing up your claims.

I want you to prove that Swords will be a Metropolis in 2030. I want you to present proof that the tenders came in under 2 billion - I'm sure we'd all be delighted if that's the case, but if you're going to claim that, provide evidence. Until you can do that, this discussion is quite frankly over.

My dear. Anybody who argues that the MN line should have been a heavy rail DART line in one breadth and then claims that the projected pax for the light metro of MN are exaggerated in the next breadth is not to be taken seriously.

Where's your proof that Swords won't be a thriving metropolis is 20 years time?

The bloke down the pub who told you that we'll have a never
ending recession isn't really proof, I'm afraid.

Except down the pub of course.

BluntGuy · 25-03-2010 11:58am

Vuctor wrote: »

My dear. Anybody who argues that the MN line should have been a heavy rail DART line in one breadth and then claims that the projected pax for the light metro of MN are exaggerated in the next breadth is not to be taken seriously.

DART standard would ensure in 60 or 70 years time when the capacity might be needed, it would be there. Rather than short-sighted thinking.

But the key reason, would be to allow a tie-in in to the Northern Line and mainline services and the efficiencies that come with using the same rolling stock, guage, depot & maintainence facilities, electricity systems. It connects the mainline to the airport and it increases the number of route opportunities. This would beef up passenger numbers more than extending the Metro into a field north of Swords.

I would not advocate MN as a DART line without the changes I've highlighted. But of course this is entirely speculative thinking, it isn't going to happen. My original point, was that if you're going to spend 5 billion on something, you should get the best out of the deal. I don't think for 5 billion, one tram line that doesn't physically integrate with anything else is the best you can get. Now if the tenders are under 2 billion, great! But I've yet to see any solid proof.

Where's your proof that Swords won't be a thriving metropolis is 20 years time?

Easy, Swords has 34,000 citizens now. In 2030, realistically it'll most likely have 50,000 citizens, 60,000 perhaps. This is not a metropolis.

If you believe Swords will have 100,000 citizens as has been mooted, then you are sadly wrong (not that 100,000 is a metropolis either). This was based on unrealistic Celtic Tiger development plans (25,000 new houses) that quite simply aren't going to surface now which Fingal Co.Co embraced. Now don't get me wrong, they produced a beautiful eye-catching brochure about it, they had a some good ideas, but that isn't quite the same as reality, which seemed to be a foreign concept to many people at the height of the Celtic Tiger nonsense.

I am not denying Swords experienced heavy population growth in the late 90s. But you can't just extrapolate that 20 years into the future, just like you can't say "oh we're in a boom, it'll go on forever". With 375,000 empty houses around the country, most of which are in Dublin, do you really think there's going to be demand for 25,000 new ones any time soon? Do you really think any developers have the cash to splash out for that any time soon?

Now where's your proof that it WILL be?

The bloke down the pub who told you that we'll have a never
ending recession isn't really proof, I'm afraid.

Except down the pub of course.

I never once claimed we'd have a never ending recession. But Swords' expansion to 100,000 depends on Celtic Tiger insanity levels of growth and development that are completely unsustainable and aren't going to be happening again (unless artificially made to happen).

Vuctor · 25-03-2010 12:04pm

50,000 is the definition of a Metropolis.

Do you invent all your 'facts'?

Where is your evidence that Bertie influenced the route of MN?

Why won't you answer any questions but simply fire out questions of your own?

The bloke down the pub telling you that Bertie done it is not really evidence.

markpb · 25-03-2010 12:12pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

DART standard would ensure in 60 or 70 years time when the capacity might be needed, it would be there. Rather than short-sighted thinking.

Surely all we need is to make sure that the tunnel, track and stations can be upgraded in the future to use proper signalling and longer/more frequent trains/trams. The choice of gauge and stock type isn't very important in the long run - it may make it easier to buy more/new rolling stock in the future if we keep to international gauge. All we need is a relatively easy upgrade path for the infrastructure. That may mean tunnels that are much longer than are needed right now, it may mean designing on-street sections so they can handle longer trams or making allowances for a change of signalling system.

But the key reason, would be to allow a tie-in in to the Northern Line and mainline services and the efficiencies that come with using the same rolling stock, guage, depot & maintenance facilities, electricity systems.

Couldn't the same be said by using the same track, stock and electrical system as the Luas system? (I assume they are, I'm not sure on that.) Efficiencies work both ways, as long as pick a system that is compatible with something we already have and not a completely different third system.

On a less technical note, I have a good preference for making it incompatible with Dart - it means there's a bigger chance that a private company will operate it. The though of letting Irish Rail near Metro North or Luas makes me sick. Trains running to crazy, spotted timetables with the wrong destination, no announcements, no late night service, rude staff, etc. I fully understand that some of the problem with Dart are out of their hands but the majority of day to day flaws are down to lazy management and crazy over-unionised work practices. Dragging that crap into a new train service is a waste of money.

DWCommuter · 25-03-2010 1:13pm

Vuctor wrote: »

50,000 is the definition of a Metropolis.

Do you invent all your 'facts'?

Where is your evidence that Bertie influenced the route of MN?

Why won't you answer any questions but simply fire out questions of your own?

The bloke down the pub telling you that Bertie done it is not really evidence.

LOL!

That Metropolis definition of yours is a bit ropey and open to question.

Do you spin all of your "facts"?

Craig Fay · 25-03-2010 1:29pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

That Metropolis definition of yours is a bit ropey and open to question.

It's an American definition. A US city with a population of 50,000 is required to have a metropolitan planning board.

Not that this is likely top happen anytime soon, but isn't Swords planned to become Dublin's next large suburb with a population of 100,000?

Vuctor · 25-03-2010 1:36pm

Dublin Airport will inevitably become a major hub in the medium to long term.

To plan for otherwise would be exactly what luntGuy's pub friend has been complaining about.

Sponge Bob · 25-03-2010 1:39pm

Vuctor wrote: »

Dublin Airport will inevitably become a major hub in the medium to long term.

Yeah, we will have to call it Swords Airport and it will be a hub for Swords

Vuctor · 25-03-2010 1:45pm

no we'll call it Galway East.

Just so the those of the Wesht can imagine they have a real metropolis for once.

Sponge Bob · 25-03-2010 1:57pm

Vuctor wrote: »

no we'll call it Galway East.

Just so the those of the Wesht can imagine they have a real metropolis for once.

Naming Swords Galway East is sound long term planning .......Dublin style. I commend the effort.

Where does Swords intend to nick a university from ???

BluntGuy · 25-03-2010 2:16pm

Couldn't the same be said by using the same track, stock and electrical system as the Luas system? (I assume they are, I'm not sure on that.) Efficiencies work both ways, as long as pick a system that is compatible with something we already have and not a completely different third system.

Metro North will never physically integrate with the Luas system or anything else unless it is either tied into the Green Line at the southern end (might not be such a bad idea, but technically very difficult) or the disastrous Metro West is built.

I've criticised the MN proposal quite a bit over the past few pages, but this does not mean I don't recognise the good elements. Trams tend to be more accessable than trains, and the MN trams will be slightly wider than Luas (2.65 m as opposed to 2.4 m). I have no doubt the system will be aesthetically pleasing, something DART trains never quite managed. The DART brand has been tarnished by Irish Rail incompetence where as Luas/RPA have a generally favourable reputation, so people may be more welcoming of a system similiar to Luas. You could also argue that light rail is appropriate for a city of low-medium density (I would worry about capacity issues in the far future though - it is NOT easy to upgrade tunnels and stations, and the tunnel width has been limited to only allow certain width rolling stock, the tunnel curvature in places is also quite limiting).

Vuctor wrote: »

50,000 is the definition of a Metropolis.

Do you invent all your 'facts'?

As someone rightly pointed out, that is the American definition which doesn't apply here. Also, it's a bit more complicated than just having 50,000 people living somewhere.

I don't see why I should have to answer anything when you've yet to produce a single shred of evidence for the claims which YOU made first.

Here is one of the first posts you made before I made any mention of Bertie:

MN will not cost 5 billion. The tenders are well below 2 billion. I can tell you that with certainty.

The route selection was not interferred with politically. The selected route is the only sensible one.

You make another nonsense point. If 30 million pax is unrealistic then why would a DART line be needed from SSG? at more expense.

You have a childish grasp of transport economics and the potential for growth particularly along the MN route through the key airport corridor.

Justify all of those, and then I'll talk about Bertie and political interference in Dublin's rail plans over the years.

If you can't manage to justify that, then you're getting nothing.

Vuctor · 25-03-2010 2:29pm

luntGuy, what technical difficulties do you imagine in running MN on the LUAS green line?

BluntGuy · 25-03-2010 2:38pm

Vuctor wrote: »

luntGuy, what technical difficulties do you imagine in running MN on the LUAS green line?

Um... getting them to join up? lol

The RPA makes it sound simple. It isn't. Where would the tunnel portals be located? How about the upgrades needed to accomodate 90 m Metro trams as opposed to the current (I think) 56 m Luas trams, then there's the systems integrations, track upgrades, there might be horizontal clearance issues in places. It is an immense technical challenge.

It isn't impossible, but it isn't easy either.

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

Comments