Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

24567189

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


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

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

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

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

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

    Along with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


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

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

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

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

    Far more bang for your buck I think.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


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

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

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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


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

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

    Far more bang for your buck I think.

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭eia340600


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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


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

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

    It would certainly add a moderate amount of cost.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭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)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    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.......


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭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 ???? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 777 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    +1

    And Vuctor is an obvious trolling asshole, right?

    Think about it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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 ???? :confused:

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,515 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    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?

    :D

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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?

    :D

    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).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,358 ✭✭✭markpb


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    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"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19 Craig Fay


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    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.


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


    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 :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    no we'll call it Galway East.

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


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


    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 ???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    Immense technical difficulties?

    What track upgrade would be required?

    In your expert opinion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Vuctor wrote: »
    Immense technical difficulties?

    What track upgrade would be required?

    In your expert opinion.

    I cannot answer that in detail, no one has yet to carry out a feasability study of upgrading the Luas to Metro.

    Investigation would have to be carried out into the curvature of the track, does the track have enough clearance horizontally, what speed limit will the track allow? It is inevitable that to allow MN trams to run optimally on the Luas tracks, upgrades would have to be carried out. The tracks are not designed for Metro, they are designed for Luas. They allow provision to be upgraded to Metro, but they are not Metro standard.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,358 ✭✭✭markpb


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

    IIRC It can't handle the increased frequency because of the overhead power system and the four (?) at-grade road junctions. There's also no dedicated turnback facility which would allow trams to operate shorter runs across the core of the city.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    The track from SSG to Sandyford has already been constructed to take heavy metro trains.

    This point illustrates nicely that you you just make it up as you go along.
    A fact I'm aware of from the occasional glance I give this forum.

    You started off calling for a DART line from SSG to the metropolis of Swords.

    MN was chosen beause paring back the cost was essential to get critical mass support for the project.

    You must be one of the most uninformed 'experts' one could find.

    You might as well call for free rockets for everyone from SSG to Swords.

    Just fantasy stuff.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Okay - let's get a few things straight.

    1. Yes, MetroNorth will likely be built with light metro vehicles and not DARTs. However, sometimes discussion about how existing projects are being or should have been built can inform future projects.

    2. Capacity is determined by how many passengers a train can carry and how many trains will operate. Saying "DART is much higher capacity" is rubbish - as I noted above it is not hard to configure a DART consist the same length of the proposed Metro. The mode doesn't matter - what matters is headways (and Metro's is proposed to be 90 seconds!) and passenger floor area/seating configuration of the train. By contrast DART headway at the moment is about 900 seconds, so to provide the same capacity as a 2-vehicle 90m Metro set @ 90sec, you need to run an 8-car 165m DART about every three minutes.

    3. Demand depends on where the train is coming from and where it's going. MetroNorth terminating in Lissenhall is not the same as MetroNorth terminating in Donabate, because Donabate opens up the market of people who can't or don't want to drive down the M1. That doesn't mean that you exclude the Lissenhall P/R but it also adds another draw to the Northern Suburban too.

    4. I doubt there is any serious intent to hook MetroNorth to Green Line. They will either stay disconnected, with Green Line continued as BX/D or MetroNorth will head south into Terenure. My vote would be for the latter.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,358 ✭✭✭markpb


    Vuctor wrote: »
    The track from SSG to Sandyford has already been constructed to take heavy metro trains.This point illustrates nicely that you you just make it up as you go along. A fact I'm aware of from the occasional glance I give this forum.

    Tone it down a little.

    The only thing that was done to L-G to make it metro compatible was a wider separation between the tracks (not the gauge). This means the 2.6m wide trams could use it as well as the existing 2.4m trams. The same is not possible on the L-R line because the track separation is a lot less. Nothing else was done.

    Metro's usually are fully grade separated - L-G is not.
    Metro's usually have sufficient power to allow 90 second headways - L-G does not.
    Metro's have dedicated turnback facilities (MN will have this in a loop underneath SSG) to allow turnbacks without causing signalling obstructions
    Metro's have fully centrally controlled signalling systems - L-G has driver-operated, line of sight signalling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 116 ✭✭Son of Stupido


    The initial scoping study looked at a split at Adelaide road, with a branch going to Terenure and another to the Green line. Tie-ins to the green line were also examined.

    The Luas green line rails will be identical to the metro. Only difference is the vehicles for metro will be longer. Same tracks, same wires, same voltage.

    An upgrade to metro for the green line will require the obvious tunnel connection (to start at beechwood) and the closing off of some of the level crossings until sandyford. Thats pretty much it.

    People might be surprised to know that compatibility was always part of the plan, if not always successfully communicated to the public!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Vuctor wrote: »
    The track from SSG to Sandyford has already been constructed to take heavy metro trains.

    No it hasn't. SSG - Charlemont is NOT even close to Metro standard for example.

    Also, it wouldn't be heavy metro, it would be light metro. :rolleyes:

    The platforms are not built to accomodate 90 m trams, it's hard to see how some of them could be extended without some serious work.

    The level crossings would have to give Metro FULL priority. Some re-signalling would have to be done.

    Luas Green is NOT Metro standard. It is certainly possible to upgrade it... I never once said it was impossible, just not as easy as the RPA love to make it sound.
    This point illustrates nicely that you you just make it up as you go along.
    A fact I'm aware of from the occasional glance I give this forum.

    Not really, no. :)
    You started off calling for a DART line from SSG to the metropolis of Swords.

    LOL! I never called Swords a metropolis, please don't put words in my mouth. And actually, my initial speculative proposal may have cut out Swords altogether. I included Swords as a possibility.
    You must be one of the most uninformed 'experts' one could find.

    Where did I claim to be an expert? :confused:

    I said I'd read all the documents relating to MN and if people wanted a hand getting a particular piece of information I'd link it to them.

    After that it is entirely my opinion, backed up by my own research. It doesn't mean I'm wrong or right, I'm just discussing stuff like everyone else here.
    You might as well call for free rockets for everyone from SSG to Swords.

    Sure, why not? :pac:

    You seem to be getting awfully bothered by a little bit of speculation on my part and some criticism of MN. I mean really, cool the tone down a bit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 777 ✭✭✭dRNk SAnTA


    http://www.rpa.ie/PublishingImages/Metro%20North/MN%20RO%20OH%203D%20Flash%20Movies%20080409/Metro_North_Final_Animation.swf

    For anyone like me who hadn't seen this before, it's a fully animated video that shows the interiors of Stephen's Green station, O'Connell St, Drumcondra, Ballymun, Airport and more.

    It's easy to forget how big a project this will be! The stations aren't anything fancy but they do look quite nice. It will be interesting to compare the Dart Underground stations to the RPA stations. As someone else has said, the RPA always do a good job on design, I don't think anyone could say the same for Irish Rail!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34 Vuctor


    Instead of wriggling like a scalded pig bluntguy you need to show a bit of humility about the endless spoofing that you consider fact on this forum.


    more of a cod than a mod.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement