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

BluntGuy

Mod warning: Please only post only about the actual Metrolink proposal - proposals about Luas/Metro alternatives should go here. Otherwise posts will be moved or deleted.

I thought it was about time this massive piece of Infrastructure got its own thread. There is so much to talk about with regard to this project, it's hard to know where to start.

Well the basic overview is (taken and edited from the EIS):

Metro North will connect the Fingal County town of Swords and the townland of Belinstown to Dublin’s City centre. The selected route for the proposed scheme serves a number of key destinations including Dublin Airport.

It will interchange with existing Luas Green Line services at St. Stephen’s Green and Red Line services at O’Connell Street. It will also interchange with DART (Dublin Area Rapid Transit) and suburban rail services at St. Stephen’s Green (via the proposed rail interconnector) and at Drumcondra following the electrification of the suburban rail line. 2,600 Park & Ride spaces will be provided at key locations along the route so the proposed scheme will benefit people from far beyond its immediate catchment area. The proposed scheme will also have excellent interchange with local and regional bus services, with bus interchange facilities being provided at most stops.

The proposed scheme will have significant reserve capacity to grow to meet Dublin’s long term transport needs. When it opens, the proposed scheme will carry around 80,000 passengers per day. This is forecast to grow significantly over time. The proposed scheme will have an ultimate capacity in excess of 40,000 passengers per hour (20,000 in each direction). This is beyond the capacity of an on-street rail system, but will easily be accommodated on MetroNorth, which can accommodate longer Light Metro Vehicles (LMVs) operating at a higher frequency.

The journey time from Swords to the city centre will be about 26 minutes, less than half the time of the same journey by car at peak rush hour. As with Luas, Metro North passengers will not have to worry about timetables. Peak time services will run every 4 minutes, and more frequently as passenger numbers grow. The proposed scheme is expected to carry some 35 million passengers a year once it is operational.

The vast majority of the route is fully segregated, including the entire route from the city centre to Swords. North of Swords there is one at grade crossing of a public road, and provision for additional crossings which will be integrated into the streetscape of the planned new town centre at Lissenhall. The design caters economically for the forecast passenger flows which are typical of a low to medium density city such as Dublin. Metro North is designed to operate using both a railway type signalling system and a line of sight system.

The proposed scheme will provide a frequent service which will be attractive for relatively short journeys within the urban area, including those which involve changing from other modes at Park & Ride car parks or bus interchanges. The maintenance of close headways to minimise passenger waiting times has been key to the success of Luas and is an important part of the system concept for the proposed scheme. The emphasis is on operating frequent services using trainsets of moderate length rather than long trains at relatively infrequent intervals. Capacity will be increased over time by increasing the peak service frequency progressively from four minutes to two minutes.

The proposed scheme will play a key role in a fully integrated public transport system for Dublin. Integration will include:

- the backbone of an urban network which incorporates the proposed Metro West line and the future integration of Metro and Luas services which will make use of the tunnel section in the future

- provision for transfer to and from domestic and international air services at the Airport

- the location and design of stops to facilitate transfer between metro, light rail, suburban rail, bus services, private car and bicycles together with good access on foot

- full provision in the design of the stops for Integrated multi-modal ticketing

　
You can find the rest of the overview from the EIS here:

Metro North EIS Volume 1

A more detailed overview is provided here.

A 3D simulation of the scheme is provided here (give it a little while to load, it's a 17.9 mb flash movie file).

Having looked through all of the reference designs and oral hearing evidence, I'd be happy to point you to any particular piece of information (e.g station sizes a.k.a - how many ticket machines, location of tunnel bores etc.) if you require it.

A couple of images (mostly taken from John Smith's Architectural Design presentation PDFs which you can find here)

Their picture of a typical LMV:



This shows Dardistown stop. This is indicative of a typical surface level stop. It looks like a high-spec LUAS stop. (note that there are four platforms, to allow for future interchange with... "Metro" West.)



The DCU station entrance looks rather ugly in this picture...



But, their comparison shot of the Porto Metro in Portugal (which is of similar spec) shows it can look rather decent, and there's evidently integration with bus.



The swords stop.



The terminus stop with a car park that crosses over the line.



An escalator!!!!



(What is significant though is the sizing of the escalator - it's to do with amount of machinery required to operate it, and the space taken up).

Anyway, another shot of Porto Metro, to show what we can expect from escalator entrances:



The Metro North level of St.Stephen's Green station (the DART will be underneath this).



The O'Connell Bridge station. I'm guessing this station will be constructed using mining techniques (rather like I presume the Interconnector stations will be).

etchyed

BluntGuy wrote: »

Most of the time I feel like I get the whole light metro thing, but looking at how pedestrians will use that stop just makes me think, really? A ****ing tram stop? Why, after spending over a billion/billions of euro on an underground tunnel through the heart of the city, would you have tram stops on the outskirts? I know that MN, unlike MW, will be grade separated from roads. But apparently it's not considered as important to separate it from the pedestrians who want to use the bloody thing! How can a train/tram/LRV/whateverthehellitis travel at its optimum speed when it has to cautiously crawl into each stop?

Maybe there are other systems with a similar arrangement that work just fine but this looks VERY incongruous. The picture above just looks plain wrong. There are Luas green line stops that are better equipped.

sdanseo

etchyed wrote: »

Most of the time I feel like I get the whole light metro thing, but looking at how pedestrians will use that stop just makes me think, really? A ****ing tram stop? Why, after spending over a billion/billions of euro on an underground tunnel through the heart of the city, would you have tram stops on the outskirts? I know that MN, unlike MW, will be grade separated from roads. But apparently it's not considered as important to separate it from the pedestrians who want to use the bloody thing! How can a train/tram/LRV/whateverthehellitis travel at its optimum speed when it has to cautiously crawl into each stop?

Maybe there are other systems with a similar arrangement that work just fine but this looks VERY incongruous. The picture above just looks plain wrong. There are Luas green line stops that are better equipped.

In fairness, there are only about five stops the length of the route like this. It's not going to affect the journey time by more than a minute.

My concern is capacity; theres about 20 ticket barriers in the city centre stops which gives an indication that they're expecting huge uptake. If this is the case in Swords etc, a couple of vending machines just won't do. It needs a proper booking office and a footbridge - especially if there's going to be a train in the station every 90-120 seconds at peak.

munchkin_utd

sdonn wrote: »

In fairness, there are only about five stops the length of the route like this. It's not going to affect the journey time by more than a minute.

My concern is capacity; theres about 20 ticket barriers in the city centre stops which gives an indication that they're expecting huge uptake. If this is the case in Swords etc, a couple of vending machines just won't do. It needs a proper booking office and a footbridge - especially if there's going to be a train in the station every 90-120 seconds at peak.

Maybe this would be a problem.
On the other hand, how many people will be buying cash tickets at peak times?
Most commuters should have weekly or monthly tickets so you shouldnt really need a bank of ticket machines for commuters.

IF the new transport authority manages to make the Dublin transport arrangements into a transport system then you'll also have masses of bus passengers from neighbouring areas connecting to the metro and already in possession of a vaid ticket for the metro that also does them for the bus.

Typewriter

Great thread.

It does look like a carbon copy of the Porto metro...

BluntGuy

Here's an opinion on Metro North:

http://www.sligochampion.ie/temp/theres-no-bigger-white-elephant-railway-project-than-metro-north-dublin-1934113.html

I'm not sure I totally agree with the project, but surely using his alternative route wouldn't be a good idea. Luas BXD looks very messy.

I have had an opportunity to look at an alternative route to Metro North. I lived for a number of years close to Phibsborough in Dublin and my family live in East Meath so I am familiar with that area. There is an under-used rail line from the new Dockland Railway Station, which is beside the new National Convention Centre at Spencer Dock, to Cabra. This line runs along the Canal End of Croke Park. This line will be used for the new line to Meath. There is also a green belt running up through Finglas. It would be possible to extend the Green Luas Line from St Stephen's Green down Kildare Street and Westland Row to the Liffey. This line could continue towards Cabra, using the line at the Canal End of Croke Park, up through Finglas and on to the airport.

This route would be about 4 miles longer than the straight route proposed for Metro North but could be built for around 20% of the cost. This route would have a journey time from the airport to the city centre of about 33 minutes or 10 minutes longer than Metro North.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well that's one thing we can be assured of. I have some issues with the Luas, but aesthetics were never one of them. The stops and rolling stock are very good to look at, I imagine this new "Metro" will be the same.

But how will it be integrated with the other rail networks in Dublin - Luas & DART? Will it have a similar gauge as either of these lines, or will it be completely different?

Metro North will run on the standard international gauge, the one that Luas runs on. That means that the Metro North rolling stock will be able to run on Luas tracks and vice versa. The Luas Green line is actually mostly segregated, and can be upgraded to "Metro" Status. It is possible that they will continue the tunnel and integrate it with the Green Line at some point in the future, hence forming a North-South segregated railway spine, all the way from Bray (with line B2) to north of Swords.

It will not be compatiable with DART rolling stock, as they're on a different guage and require larger tunnels. Connections will be available at two stations, Drumcondra (Dart Line 2) and St.Stephen's Green (Dart Line 1).

Will it be run as another wing of CIE/Iarnród Éireann or Veolia, or will it be given to a third company?

It will be operated by the winning consortium.

It just seems that things could get messy with three separate rail groups operating in a smallish city of ~1 million (according to Wikipedia, the Metro is Porto's only light rail system).

I agree. They should have a single brand, or just class Metro as part of the Luas Light Rail network. I know it's higher spec, but three seperate brands is completely unnecessary.

Tech3

Some more photos of the stations proposed in Metro North, these were taken from the Metro North Oral Hearing presentation. There is also forecasted passenger demand on slide 5 of the presentation.


Here is the presentation



O' Connell Bridge stop and shows ticketing gates





Drumcondra stop





The project is currently being looked at by ABP.

Metro North hearings put back to March so public can view changes

TIM O'BRIEN

Tue, Feb 02, 2010

AN BORD Pleanála hearings into Metro North, the proposed underground rail link between St Stephen’s Green and Swords, have been suspended, at least until March.

The suspension is to allow the public and interested parties to review changes to three aspects of the project’s design. The changes cover the Mater hospital, Ballymun and Seatown stops.

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) said the changes to the hospital stop will include a second entrance, accessed from Eccles Street, within the proposed national paediatric hospital.

The agency said this enabled it to move emergency ventilation fans, part of the station structure and emergency escape routes a further 20m away from the Mater Private hospital.

Changes to the Ballymun and Seatown stops were more minor in nature, but utilised lands not identified in the original environmental impact assessment.

The changes can be viewed on the RPA website and at its officers and at An Bord Pleanála.

The deadline for submissions on the changes is next Monday.

Detailed plans for the scheme first went on display in September 2008. The inquiry also recently heard that compensation claims which go to arbitration may not be settled before Metro North is operational, currently thought to be 2015 at the earliest.

The project is going to be funded through the PPP mechanism and two consortia have been shortlisted.

1. METRO EXPRESS Consortium

John Sisk & Son : Leading Irish construction firm

AIB : Irish bank

Mercury : Irish engineering group which built the Luas electrical systems

Bombardier : Builds trams and locomotives

Macquarie Group : Part of the Australian bank of the same name; owns and runs rail projects around the world

Global Via Infraestructuras (GIV) : Spanish group, already working on M50 upgrade and operator of seven rail networks

Transdev RATP : Combination of London-listed rail and public transport builder and operator Transdev, and Paris Metro operator RATP

FCC : Spanish construction group

Alpine : Austrian-based tunnel-building specialist




2. CELTIC METRO Consortium

Barclay’s Private Equity : Division of British bank Barclay’s

Obrascon Huartes Lain : Spanish construction and engineering group

Mitsui : Japanese engineering and industrial group

Soares da Costa : Portuguese construction and engineering group

Iridium Concesiones de Infraestructuras : Spanish group specialising in road and public transport construction and management

CAF : Spanish builder of trams and trains

MTR : Hong Kong-based rail network operator.

Son of Stupido

The metro is designed as a hybrid, that is

1. It has normal metro speed & operates underground in the centre
2. On the outskirts, where frequency and demand are not as great, it can convert to a tram system

The benifits for such a system are seen as

1. Cost effective - a fraction of the normal costs as track and stations are at grade outside the city centre
2. Can integrate with existing tram systems
3. Can have multiple branches feeding into an underground metro 'stem'

However the dublin metro capacity is going to be only 20,000, while conventional metro's are in the region of 40,000.

The capacity issue is probably the most contentious.

On the issue of the Green line upgrade, this was the plan from the start, and the St Stephen's Green tunnels are designed for this (The turning loop rises above the tunnels and don't block them from being extended.

I just wish they would get on and build the bloody thing!

fresca

tech2 wrote: »

The project is going to be funded through the PPP mechanism and two consortia have been shortlisted.

where the hell are the AIB going to get the money to fund this? from the taxpayer? they can hardly squeeze much more out of us?

etchyed

sdonn wrote: »

It needs a proper booking office and a footbridge

That's really no different to what I said. It just seems wrong to me that these trains will have their own tunnels in the city centre, yet have to wait for pedestrians on the outskirts.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Having looked through all of the reference designs and oral hearing evidence, I'd be happy to point you to any particular piece of information (e.g station sizes a.k.a - how many ticket machines, location of tunnel bores etc.) if you require it.

I have a question. Is MN completely separated from traffic once it leaves its tunnels? e.g. does it cross any roads, are there pedestrian crossings etc.

I know it looks like I'm getting a hobby horse on this thing but that Swords stop looks anything but "next generation". It just looks cheap. And it looks like by skimping on the outer stretches of the line we're not getting our money's worth on the extremely expensive tunnels we're building in the centre.

As it stands there are no plans for branch lines. So a slow, cheap, at-grade line through Swords would mean severely under-utilising the capacity of the expensive tunnel south of Ballymun.

sdanseo

God I really hope there isn't a massive fuss kicked up about this by anyone important. While the LUAS-like stops are far from the stops underground, I for one couldn't bear the thought of it being delayed any longer. North County Dublin needed this line a decade ago.

etchyed

sdonn wrote: »

God I really hope there isn't a massive fuss kicked up about this by anyone important. While the LUAS-like stops are far from the stops underground, I for one couldn't bear the thought of it being delayed any longer. North County Dublin needed this line a decade ago.

In a strange way I agree with you. I am in favour of this line and I'm in favour of it happening ASAP. But you can't ignore that those stops look awful. And a waste of such an expensive tunnel.

thebman

fresca wrote: »

where the hell are the AIB going to get the money to fund this? from the taxpayer? they can hardly squeeze much more out of us?

Also the Celtic consortium seems strangly foreign :P

etchyed

I'm a relatively new poster here but a very long time reader. I would advise anyone who's new to this topic to read this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61355048&postcount=285

The green line is never going to be upgraded to metro.

The above is just one post. There are countless more threads detailing exactly why it'll never happen. Those who posted in them would probably be better placed to find them, as they go back a good few years.

It would be great if someone more knowledgeable than me could explain the whole thing and put the green line metro myth to bed for another few months, until someone forgets again why it can't happen.

BluntGuy

etchyed wrote: »

I have a question. Is MN completely separated from traffic once it leaves its tunnels? e.g. does it cross any roads, are there pedestrian crossings etc.

It will be almost completely segregated. If memory serves me, it won't actually interact with traffic until north of Estuary, and passenger numbers will be fairly low at that point. It will run near streets certainly, and there will be a few crossings, similar to Luas, but the vast majority of the "Metro"will mostly be segregated from traffic, running on two elevated viaducts (880 m and one 360 m), retained cuttings, underpasses, embankments etc.

I suppose, it will resemble a hybrid of a heavy rail service and a light rail one. But Metro North leans far more towards Heavy Rail, Metro West on the other hand...

etchyed

BluntGuy wrote: »

It will be almost completely segregated. If memory serves me, it won't actually interact with traffic until north of Estuary, and passenger numbers will be fairly low at that point. It will run near streets certainly, and there will be a few crossings, similar to Luas, but the vast majority of the "Metro"will mostly be segregated from traffic, running on two elevated viaducts (880 m and one 360 m), retained cuttings, underpasses, embankments etc.

I suppose, it will resemble a hybrid of a heavy rail service and a light rail one. But Metro North leans far more towards Heavy Rail, Metro West on the other hand...

The "hybrid" aspect is what worries me. It seems like a waste of the capacity of a tunnel through the city centre to have trams slowed down by having to cross roads on the outskirts.

BluntGuy

etchyed wrote: »

The "hybrid" aspect is what worries me. It seems like a waste of the capacity of a tunnel through the city centre to have trams slowed down by having to cross roads on the outskirts.

Well going through the reference plans, there is only one signalised road traffic crossing, and that's very near the terminus. It states that the Metro will have priority.

The majority of pedestrian crossings will be at the stations, so I doubt crossings will have a major detrimental impact on frequencies. There is a turnback facility of sorts provided north of the airport as well, so Airport-City Centre journeys are unlikely to experience delay at any rate.

etchyed

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well going through the reference plans, there is only one signalised road traffic crossing, and that's very near the terminus. It states that the Metro will have priority.

The majority of pedestrian crossings will be at the stations, so I doubt crossings will have a major detrimental impact on frequencies. There is a turnback facility of sorts provided north of the airport as well, so Airport-City Centre journeys are unlikely to experience delay at any rate.

Hmmm, fair enough. Thanks for the info.

sdanseo

thebman wrote: »

Also the Celtic consortium seems strangly foreign :P

That probably means it'll be done right, in fairness

Irish interest in the consortia is all well and good but I'd prefer if AIB and the other banks kept their, grubby, greedy, moneygrabbing-bastard hands off our public infrastructure.

thebman

sdonn wrote: »

That probably means it'll be done right, in fairness

Irish interest in the consortia is all well and good but I'd prefer if AIB and the other banks kept their, grubby, greedy, moneygrabbing-bastard hands off our public infrastructure.

Not arguing that, just pointing out the obvious naming issue

sdanseo

thebman wrote: »

Not arguing that, just pointing out the obvious naming issue

Ah yeah, and I'm just ranting. Free speech FTW :P

Enbee

etchyed wrote: »

I'm a relatively new poster here but a very long time reader. I would advise anyone who's new to this topic to read this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61355048&postcount=285

The green line is never going to be upgraded to metro.

If the metro was going to be extended would it not make more sense to tunnel underneath the green line for an extra stop or two (so Harcourt could be Luas and Metro) and then swing west towards a terminus in somewhere like Rathmines? Perhaps even with a view to eventually extending it all the way to Tallaght?

The only problem, of course, being the population densities beyond the canals.

BluntGuy

Enbee wrote: »

If the metro was going to be extended would it not make more sense to tunnel underneath the green line for an extra stop or two (so Harcourt could be Luas and Metro) and then swing west towards a terminus in somewhere like Rathmines? Perhaps even with a view to eventually extending it all the way to Tallaght?

The only problem, of course, being the population densities beyond the canals.

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).

ilovegermany

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).

Isn't the Plan to eventually extend the Metro from Stephen's Green with a few new stations and link in with the Luas Green line somewhere around Miltown and then use the existing tracks to Sandyford-Cherrywood-Bray (only a couple of small stretchs of unsegregated track from Miltown to Cherrywood). The existing green line could then be expanded out to other areas (e.g. Rathfarnham) and will run all the way through the city centre to Boombridge and eventually Finglas.
This will provide both a north-south luas and metro.

North Cork

http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0322/eib.html


The European Investment Bank has agreed in principle to contribute €500m to the Dublin Metro project.
The planned Metro would provide a 19km link from Dublin city centre, via the airport, to Swords in the north of the county.

The EIB said today that it sees the Metro as a key infrastructure project for the country. Its total cost is estimated at around €6 billion.


The funds are subject to full board approval, and a decision of the Government here to go ahead with the scheme.

The bank is also currently considering two other public-private partnership projects in Ireland, which would form part of a second western transport corridor between Cork, Limerick and Galway - the N17-N18 Gort to Tuam motorway link and the N11-N7 motorway.:D

Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank today reiterated its commitment to Ireland and said it would continue to support projects in the transport, energy and education sectors.

It also said it would reinforce support for small and medium sized businesses in close co-operation with local banks.

Funding of €1.02 billion for Ireland last year
The EIB last year provided €1.02 billion for six projects here - the largest ever amount secured by the country.

Funding for recent energy projects included €300m for the Eirgrid East West Interconnector and €200m for wind farms under the ESB's renewables programme. €300m was also given to Dublin airport for its new terminal.

The EIB also gave a total of €260m to AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank for credit for small and medium sized enterprises during the year.
'We are confident that industry, transport, social infrastructure, health and education will continue to benefit from EIB support in coming years,'the bank's vice president Plutarchos Sakellaris said at the start of a visit to Ireland.

Mr Sakellaris met Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, the Governor the Central Bank, Patrick Honohan, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey as well as officials from the Financial Regulatory Authority during his visit to Dublin.

Sponge Bob

That is excellent news. We need a top rated institution in the overall funding pool and we have none in Ireland any more.

Of course the €6bn figure for Metro North is plain wrong.

I take it they mean that €500m will be fecked into a pot from which MN will be financed ....or else they mean €2bn for MN and €4bn for Interconnector or something along those lines.

BluntGuy

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is excellent news. We need a top rated institution in the overall funding pool and we have none in Ireland any more.

Of course the €6bn figure for Metro North is plain wrong.

I take it they mean that €500m will be fecked into a pot from which MN will be financed ....or else they mean €2bn for MN and €4bn for Interconnector or something along those lines.

MN was reputed to cost €5bn at some point, €3 billion has been quoted, €2 billion is the more recent one and even less than €2 billion has been quoted.

I was very reserved in my support for a Metro North costing €5 billion. (For what you get - a high capacity tram line of 19 km in length).

But for between maybe €1.6 billion and €2.3 billion, it begins to look like a much better deal, especially towards the low end of the scale. If the final tender came in below €2 billion, I would be delighted.

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.

Sponge Bob

BluntGuy wrote: »

MN was reputed to cost €5bn at some point, €3 billion has been quoted, €2 billion is the more recent one and even less than €2 billion has been quoted.

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 ???

I was very reserved in my support for a Metro North costing €5 billion. (For what you get - a high capacity tram line of 19 km in length).

Bertie would have spent that of course

But for between maybe €1.6 billion and €2.3 billion, it begins to look like a much better deal, especially towards the low end of the scale. If the final tender came in below €2 billion, I would be delighted.

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.

Interconnector ( the full project including quad tracks/electrification/rolling stick ) is around €4bn and added to €2bn would be €6bn

If I hear it is for bloody Metro West and Luas to Lucan I will be very cross

Cool Mo D

Sponge Bob wrote: »

So what is the €500m for ???

It is likely that this would be used as an upfront capital payment to the successful tendering groups, to make it easier for them to finance the project.
Paying some of the cost upfront makes sense, as I would assume that the Government can borrow from the EIB cheaper then whatever metro consortium could borrow themselves, but we would still not have to come up with all the cash straight away.

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.

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?

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!?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.