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

handlemaster · 09-11-2013 9:23pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

What's the point? The government HAS. NO. MONEY. Unless this private group can show a plan that costs the state absolutely nothing, they're wasting their time.

There's a few ministers in Dublin 15 that need to deliver for the area as they will find it hard pressed knocking on doors come the next election.I would start there and then say the money can be found.

LionelNashe · 09-11-2013 9:31pm

So the airport line doesn't run North-South under O'Connell Street, but avoids the very centre of the city and goes to Heuston. Hmm. I don't like that but maybe I'm being selfish because I live in the north city centre.

I'm not sure of the point of the M-1 line from Blanchardstown. It follows the line of the existing train track for most of its length.

handlemaster · 09-11-2013 9:50pm

LionelNashe wrote: »

So the airport line doesn't run North-South under O'Connell Street, but avoids the very centre of the city and goes to Heuston. Hmm. I don't like that but maybe I'm being selfish because I live in the north city centre.

I'm not sure of the point of the M-1 line from Blanchardstown. It follows the line of the existing train track for most of its length.

That's the problem to many objectors and nothing ever gets done. I'm sure you could have a 1000 people and all not aggree.

LionelNashe · 09-11-2013 10:27pm

handlemaster wrote: »

That's the problem to many objectors and nothing ever gets done. I'm sure you could have a 1000 people and all not aggree.

If you're referring to my first point, I acknowledged that the original route under O'Connell Street was maybe just my personal preference. At the same time, if money wasn't an issue, I still think that the O'Connell Street route would be better becuse it would be more direct for most people's journeys. But like I said, I'm biased.

If you're referring to my second point about the need for a line from Blanchardstown, then that's ridiculous. Of course people are entitled to object and question. Projects being halted because of objectors isn't necessarily a bad thing; sometimes it's the correct decision.

strassenwo!f · 10-11-2013 12:32am

richiek83 wrote: »

Hi folks,

Their website is http://www.metrodublin.ie.

Provides a bit more info but says site is under construction.

Interesting one. They seem to be proposing the IrishRail gauge for the project.

Aard · 10-11-2013 4:33am

Nice map on that site.

It essentially is just: interconnector + reuse of the Cabra line + MN extended to Malahide and truncated in city centre + Blanch stub. If all of that was done at the same gauge as Dart, there'd be no need for metro branding.

I'm very suspicious of a private company proposing their own railway infrastructure. Why has there been no SEA for rail infra in Dublin? The incrementalist approach falls apart when you start to build very expensive things.

maninasia · 10-11-2013 7:17am

It doesn't matter who builds it as long as it gets built. The Chinese have a lot of experience building subways now, and they could provide finance for it too. This would be a bluechip investment for them. The Japanese might also be interested. There's no point doing 'an el cheapo' when it should be done right from the start (which guarantees usage), and the money is out there if they look further afield.

The Chinese have just financed a nuclear power plant in the UK for billions of GBP, because they know it's a solid investment over the next few decades.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/00eff456-3979-11e3-a3a4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2kDl6eGdH

An investment in the metro would be a solid investment too with support from the public and government and guaranteed fare scheme. It would actually be a lot more reliable than investment in a motorway. It's hard to think of anything that would be less guaranteed in terms of public infrastructure. The tube was started over 150 years ago and still going (strong).

strassenwo!f · 10-11-2013 8:08am

There are also a couple of fairly sharp turns involved around the St. James' Hospital/Heuston area. Not sure how that would work, if the trains capable of making such turns would be running on shared track with DART trains.

OssianSmyth · 10-11-2013 1:55pm

Is this from Cormac Rabbit? The proposal is modified from the 1996/2003 versions.

Right now there is an alignment with full planning permission and broad political support. The one problem is that the government doesn't believe it is worth 200m/year compared to alternative spending choices.

Victor · 10-11-2013 2:12pm

26 months is completely unrealistic as such a plan needs some form of planning permission and land acquisition.

On of the comments on the Independent website is quite telling

The article says it will run on "totally separate tracks" from Irish rail but the map clearly shows that most of the 3 planned routes would run parallel to or on existing Irish Rail infrastructure.

Now either they are planning to build new tracks beside existing Irish Rail track (highly unlikely) or they are planning to use existing Irish Rail infrastructure (most certainly). Neither of which is ever, ever, ever going to happen.

The first option would require the four tracking of existing tracks, this would mean destruction of a large amount of property along the route and the removal and replacement of every existing road and rail bridge and tunnel. The cost and disruption to existing Irish Rail services would simply be too prohibitive.

The second option, using Irish Rail infrastructure, would require Irish rail to upgrade the existing two tracks to handle dramatically increased traffic as well as a lot of stations along the routes.

monument · 10-11-2013 2:30pm

According to iedr.ie, metrodublin.ie is registered to UNIFIED PROPOSAL LIMITED with a contact of Cormac Rabbitt (a name many here will know).

The problem is cro.ie has UNIFIED PROPOSAL LIMITED at 8 HYBRASIL COURT CIRCULAR ROAD GALWAY listed as "Dissolved -- Effective Date 12/04/2013"

"DUBLIN METRO GROUP" at the same address (well, "8 HY BRASIL COURT") is listed on solocheck.ie: "This Registered Business Name is owned by the company Unified Proposal Limited" [it's a business name of a company which is now dissolved].

Cormac Rabbitte of the "Dublin Metro Group" has previously talked in 2003 at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport on how a Dublin metro could be built for far less than the RPA were proposing -- see the transcript here or reports from the Indo or RTE.

The same committee were a lot less impressed with Rabbitte when he was back to them in 2006 in a debate titled "The Dargan Project: Presentation" but it at least starts as more of a grilling and interruptions about who's behind the project and how viable it is.

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Is this from Cormac Rabbit? The proposal is modified from the 1996/2003 versions.

Right now there is an alignment with full planning permission and broad political support. The one problem is that the government doesn't believe it is worth 200m/year compared to alternative spending choices.

Yes, was going to post the above before getting interrupted.

BonkeyDonker · 10-11-2013 4:31pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There are also a couple of fairly sharp turns involved around the St. James' Hospital/Heuston area. Not sure how that would work, if the trains capable of making such turns would be running on shared track with DART trains.

Are those not the existing Luas lines?

strassenwo!f · 10-11-2013 5:09pm

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

Are those not the existing Luas lines?

The M3 on that map is a line which, heading out of town, goes from St. Stephen's Green to a 'Liberties' station, presumably somewhere around Christchurch. Then it heads west to a station at St. James' Hospital and then south to a station at Heuston, with interchanges with the LUAS red line at both of these. This bit is not really shown as a southward turn towards Heuston, but it would have to be, as that is the position of St. James' and Heuston relative to each other. After that it turns west again to go out along the Hazelhatch line. Those would need to be pretty sharp turns.

In effect, for this bit of the proposal, they seem to have just added a station at St. James', for whatever reason, to the DART underground proposal.

Edit: sorry, I meant "(heads) north to a station at Heuston", and "a northward turn towards Heuston".

loyatemu · 10-11-2013 5:10pm

the existing Metro and Dart Underground proposals already have planning permission, which took years to finalise. This is just more crayons on a map speculation.

GerardKeating · 10-11-2013 6:09pm

loyatemu wrote: »

the existing Metro and Dart Underground proposals already have planning permission, which took years to finalise. This is just more crayons on a map speculation.

The DART underground bits are mostly the same construction, it's only the airport link is different

Sam Russell · 10-11-2013 6:14pm

That plan (MetroDublin) has a lot of merit. It is a modification of the Dart Underground proposal, with the Metro North being diverted to Heuston over existing lines (some of the way). Quite clever.

However, I would not bring the line from Malahide, but from Howth Junction/Clongriffin, then onto the Airport. Avoiding the city centre would cut costs for sure. Using a large bore single tunnel rather than twin tunnels would also cut costs.

But are the costs and time scales realistic?

Aard · 10-11-2013 7:31pm

Actually, something I really like about the proposal is the tie-in of the disused Cabra line to the Interconnector.

Sam Russell · 10-11-2013 9:31pm

Also, an extension to Maynooth would not be a bad addition either. It would actually make the Dart (assuming everything is Dart compatible) the rapid transit it was meant to be (thirty years old now).

monument · 10-11-2013 10:18pm

There is some merit with the proposals but...

It would be one thing if Cormac Rabbitt came forward with these proposals on a website detailing clearly who was backing this (even if it is only him) and the costing details. But instead we've got the opposite: We have a site which is listed by the .IE whois directory as registered to a company which CRO.ie says is dissolved.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Also, an extension to Maynooth would not be a bad addition either. It would actually make the Dart (assuming everything is Dart compatible) the rapid transit it was meant to be (thirty years old now).

The extension to Maynooth was discussed on these boards recently -- there's a reserved alignment for it which Metro West was to use.

Aard wrote: »

Actually, something I really like about the proposal is the tie-in of the disused Cabra line to the Interconnector.

It's also makes a circle line -- a main feature of Rabbitt's "the Dargan Project".

loyatemu wrote: »

the existing Metro and Dart Underground proposals already have planning permission, which took years to finalise. This is just more crayons on a map speculation.

It's a rehashing of a rehashing of advanced crayons (note: crayon thinking can be a good thing!).

Here's a 2011 doc from Rabbite: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/131803111/Dublin-Metro-Route-Map-Capacity-Capital-Cost

handlemaster · 10-11-2013 10:25pm

Are there actually any backers for this ? According to the info they are doing a presention to to council this week !!!!

aindriu80 · 10-11-2013 10:39pm

Plan sounds good and I wish they would go ahead with Metro North in some shape or form. Irish rail should have ran a service to Dublin airport years ago and the fact that they don't is laughable. Most European capitals have a subway/Metro to their airport and I don't see why Dublin does not.

Grandeeod · 11-11-2013 12:48am

I'm sure someone on this thread mentioned this many moons ago. Once the money ran out and recession kicked in, we were always going to return to the time honoured tradition of reinventing the wheel. Watch this space folks.

strassenwo!f · 11-11-2013 2:08am

It's certainly got to be worth a look by the powers that be. The current Dept. of Transport proposals aren't going anywhere for a considerable time, and if and when they re-emerge they will certainly be subject to a lot more scrutiny than was afforded them by An Bord Pleanala.

I'm puzzled by a couple of things. I posted above about the St. James' Hospital - Heuston section of this scheme. It's one thing producing a map like the London Underground after the event, where the schematic does not necessarily reflect the geographical reality, but makes it easier for the user to use. It's quite another thing to produce a map like this before construction, when the fact that St. James' Hospital is essentially west of Heuston would seem to be a relevant issue.

I'm also not sure why they depict the M1 and M2 terminating at St. Stephen's Green. If these are to be stand-alone services, this will have to involve construction of a more complicated station than one would initially realise from the map. And it would give the lie to the claim on the website that there will be no turnback services in Central Dublin.

If, on the other hand, they are effectively to be one service - i.e. a line between Malahide and Blanchardstown via a circle line around Dublin, why have different numbers (M1 and M2) been allocated?

Aard · 11-11-2013 3:10am

Compare lines 4/6 of the Oslo tube.

strassenwo!f · 11-11-2013 3:29am

Aard wrote: »

Compare lines 4/6 of the Oslo tube.

Could you talk us through it? Some may not be familiar with that arrangement.

Aard · 11-11-2013 4:00am

Basically, line 4 becomes line 6. Trains dont stop and turn back, they just run through as the other number.

strassenwo!f · 11-11-2013 4:31am

Aard wrote: »

Basically, line 4 becomes line 6. Trains dont stop and turn back, they just run through as the other number.

There may well be reasons, perhaps historical ones (?), for that arrangement in Oslo. Have you any idea what the reason would be for introducing the distinction between lines M1 and M2 in Dublin?

Aard · 11-11-2013 4:42am

It's actually for the exact same reason in Oslo: the line loops over itself, so it's to avoid confusion.

There are only two other instances I can think of where a line loops over itself: Naples and Newcastle.

strassenwo!f · 11-11-2013 5:09am

I get it. There are, in fact, two lines being proposed. I originally thought there were three. (Assuming, of course, that Aard is close to the source of the proposal).

Aard · 11-11-2013 5:14am

Huh? Not affilliated at all. The first I heard of it was this thread.

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

Comments