[Cool Mo D]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Vuctor]

Originally Posted by BluntGuy

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]

Originally Posted by Vuctor

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]

Originally Posted by BluntGuy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by dowlingm

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Vuctor

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by BluntGuy

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



If Bertie you say so.



An excellent counter-argument.



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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Vuctor

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]

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.]

Originally Posted by dRNk SAnTA

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]

Originally Posted by D.L.R.

+1

And Vuctor is an obvious trolling asshole, right?

Think about it.

[BluntGuy]

Originally Posted by Sponge Bob

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.

Originally Posted by dRNk SAnTA

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.