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

DWCommuter

D.L.R. wrote: »

Having a clear picture of the future of the green line is key here.

If it gets metro-ised and joined to Metro North, then BXD becomes largely redundant.

And likewise, if the Green line ends up as a tram line coupled to BXD, then why does MN need to go towards SSG at all? It could go to one of the mainline stations, for example.

The point is, ironing out this fuzzy double vision is essential if we want the best results.

That fuzzy double vision stems from the conception/implementation of Luas in the first place. Originally it was an overground connection under the previous FG lead Government. In opposition Bertie Ahearn was on Dail record as stating that if in Government, FF would not dig up the streets of the city centre for luas. They would go underground. Upon entering Government they commissioned a "study", lost out on EU funding and ended up with two unconnected lines on the premise of a Metro being built at a later stage that included an upgrade of the Green line. That is why the Green line was built to a slightly different value.

However, the unconnected luas lines have more value to commuters as a mode of transport, if connected. Somewhere along the line the "gap" was converted to a Metro and we set out on the quest to build MN. The entire metro concept was born out of the argument of underground or overground for the original luas plans in the city centre.

Sponge Bob

Ultracapacitors seem to make sense where electricity is expensive, eg in Ireland. They appear to charge mainly under braking so the station location is vital because braking into it generates most of the charge for the 'battery' operated section. They last a lot longer than batteries too.

http://www.spin-project.eu/index.php?node_id=58.69&lang_id=1

Advantages
Since the braking energy is stored and reused, consumption of electrical energy is reduced to minimum. In some applications energy saving is up to 30%...50%. The system not only saves money but also helps to cut peak demands of electricity during load acceleration or peak demand (e.g. during charging battery of electric vehicle). In UPS applications the system can reduce production losses and increase yield.

The ultracapacitor doesn’t have moving and maintenance requiring parts like flywheel accumulator. In comparison with electrochemical batteries, the number of loading and emptying cycles is approximately 1000 times higher reaching million complete loading and emptying cycles. In addition to that, ultracapacitors are maintenance-free and the guaranteed lifetime in storage device reaches 25 years.

So if this approach is to be used along with overhead it must be decided on BEFORE the detailed design is undertaken. It is rather new and postdates the middle of the last decade by and large when BX was originally sketched out.

If yor wanna be really clever you discharge up across the catenary to other trams when you don't need the juice....and they do. I don't think the RPA are overendowed with creative electrical engineers somehow but Dublin does have the software engineering capability to write the control systems

It all makes for what is called a smart economy ...elsewhere.

dowlingm

Sponge Bob

Bombardier are already offering trams with their capacitor system:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/mitrac-energy-saver

but I don't know what the cost premium is or how limited the wireless operation area is. My concern would be what if one tram has to push another out of a wireless area - might not be enough power to move both depending on the situation.

Jack Noble

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

DU is by far the most important project which will deliver the most benefits for Dublin.

And because it has a much longer construction period, the funding can be allocated over a much longer period.

Metro North can and should be kept on ice and the bond market/PPP situation monitored until it becomes favourable. Also, if the the govt really waqnts to proceed with MN, it should seek 100% PPP funding and offer attractive repayment/operation terms to private sector over the longer term, 40 to 50 years instead of 25 - with equally attractive buyout terms for the State after 10, 20, 30 years, etc.

It should also be considered lumping Metro North and West together in such a contract. With DU aleady built by the State, then MN/MW should prove more attractive. Govt should also consider the MN-Green line integration as part of this contract - PPP consortium build MN to SSG and get it running and then move on to extend tunnel to Ranelagh without disrupting MN service.

If DU can be built by State/CIE followed by MN/MW by PPP, then the State can later progress the planned Luas projects, Lucan F, BXD, BXD2 to Finglas, Poolbeg extensions, etc, when the

Under no circumstances should Luas BXD be chosed ahead of Dart or Metro. If it is, it will signal the end for both and victory for political expediency over the correct, long-term policy planning.

While some may see the current situation re MN/DU as the end for both, I see this as an opportunity for govt to get things right despite the current financial situation - if they decide to build Dart first followed by putting out a new Metro PPP tender when the economy begins to recover in three or four years and our debt situation has stabilised and we are no longer such a big risk for international investors.

Regarding Leo's kite re 50 to 100 year lease/100% private sector funding for Metro, maybe the Minister should give Cormac Rabbitt of the Mitsui Dublin Metro and Dargan Project a call. After all, he believes such a system could be self-funding.

Chose Dart Underground, Leo - and then offer Metro North and West, with Green Line integration/extension to Rabbitt to put together a new consortium to finance, build and operate for 40 or 50 years.

That's my thoughts on the matter. I will also post this in the Dart Underground Delayed thread to get the debate going.

lods

Jack Noble wrote: »

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

DU is by far the most important project which will deliver the most benefits for Dublin.

And because it has a much longer construction period, the funding can be allocated over a much longer period.

Metro North can and should be kept on ice and the bond market/PPP situation monitored until it becomes favourable. Also, if the the govt really waqnts to proceed with MN, it should seek 100% PPP funding and offer attractive repayment/operation terms to private sector over the longer term, 40 to 50 years instead of 25 - with equally attractive buyout terms for the State after 10, 20, 30 years, etc.

It should also be considered lumping Metro North and West together in such a contract. With DU aleady built by the State, then MN/MW should prove more attractive. Govt should also consider the MN-Green line integration as part of this contract - PPP consortium build MN to SSG and get it running and then move on to extend tunnel to Ranelagh without disrupting MN service.

If DU can be built by State/CIE followed by MN/MW by PPP, then the State can later progress the planned Luas projects, Lucan F, BXD, BXD2 to Finglas, Poolbeg extensions, etc, when the

Under no circumstances should Luas BXD be chosed ahead of Dart or Metro. If it is, it will signal the end for both and victory for political expediency over the correct, long-term policy planning.

While some may see the current situation re MN/DU as the end for both, I see this as an opportunity for govt to get things right despite the current financial situation - if they decide to build Dart first followed by putting out a new Metro PPP tender when the economy begins to recover in three or four years and our debt situation has stabilised and we are no longer such a big risk for international investors.

Regarding Leo's kite re 50 to 100 year lease/100% private sector funding for Metro, maybe the Minister should give Cormac Rabbitt of the Mitsui Dublin Metro and Dargan Project a call. After all, he believes such a system could be self-funding.

Chose Dart Underground, Leo - and then offer Metro North and West, with Green Line integration/extension to Rabbitt to put together a new consortium to finance, build and operate for 40 or 50 years.

That's my thoughts on the matter. I will also post this in the Dart Underground Delayed thread to get the debate going.

Maybe its the wine , but that makes sense jack:eek:

DWCommuter

lods wrote: »

Maybe its the wine , but that makes sense jack:eek:

Yes it makes some kind of sense alright, but alas I'm not convinced this is what could transpire. I'm so sorry for being the eternally bleak contributor here, but even over the course of the complete DU project the costs are still very substantial and I'm still convinced that Irish politicians aren't brave enough to step up to plate re the biggest public transport investment in the history of the state. (MN or DU)

Its interesting to see that despite the differences in planning, it appears that both projects may be back on an even footing, but this only goes to prove that our Government have lost interest in them due to the cost. A luas link up looks the likely winner if any.

Zebra3

Jack Noble wrote: »

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

"MUST" as in you hope or you think that's what he will go for?

I think BXD is on the cards. It looks like something for Dublin (except to a tiny minority who understand transport) and it keeps the "Dublin get everything" brigade from foaming at the mouth over perceived big spending in a recession.

The more I follow this, the less I understand how the DART ever got started in the 80s.

dynamick

Jack Noble wrote: »

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

Where is the money to finance DU? I guess DU will be in the same cost region as MN (2.5b). It can't be built with the available funds, no more than MN can be built.

A drawback of DU is that it doesn't create many new catchment areas but instead intensifies the use in areas already served by rail. Politicians may prefer projects that spread benefits to more people - even if the net benefit is lower.

Here is my guess for what will happen:
BXD will be built but the elements of MN that need to be built before BXD will be done first. Basic metro station boxes will be built at SSG, OC Bridge, Parnell Street. Services diversion on Grafton Street, Westmoreland st & OCS will be carried out.

BXD will open but MN can still be built later. The plan for MN was to create stations first and tunnel through the station boxes with the TBM like stringing beads. So the stations can be connected at a later date.

BXD price hasn't been released but I am guessing it's in the mid hundreds of millions and that it assumes that services diversion on OCS has been done as part of MN. If we're lucky, the EIB will agree to part finance the project (500m) with the state paying the balance (600m?)

The result would be a big visible 'Luas interconnector' project that should have high ridership from day yet doesn't require a PPP and doesn't prevent MN from being built later.

oharach

dynamick wrote: »

Here is my guess for what will happen:
BXD will be built but the elements of MN that need to be built before BXD will be done first. Basic metro station boxes will be built at SSG, OC Bridge, Parnell Street. Services diversion on Grafton Street, Westmoreland st & OCS will be carried out.

I don't think that's likely. Can you imagine the cost per kilometre figures uninformed journalists would come up with for the cost of Luas BX if it included digging stations at SSG and Parnell St and building a station under the Liffey?! This option also involves all the disruption that people have complained about, namely:

a. digging up part of the Green
b. bus disruption in Westmoreland St/OCS
c. potentially harmful vibrations at the Rotunda

with NONE of the corresponding benefit of the Metro at the end of it all. After that much disruption for a pathetic 2km tram, there would be no public appetite left for Metro North, even if it was explained that there would be minimal disruption.

Pete_Cavan

oharach wrote: »

I don't think that's likely. Can you imagine the cost per kilometre figures uninformed journalists would come up with for the cost of Luas BX if it included digging stations at SSG and Parnell St and building a station under the Liffey?! This option also involves all the disruption that people have complained about, namely:

a. digging up part of the Green
b. bus disruption in Westmoreland St/OCS
c. potentially harmful vibrations at the Rotunda

with NONE of the corresponding benefit of the Metro at the end of it all. After that much disruption for a pathetic 2km tram, there would be no public appetite left for Metro North, even if it was explained that there would be minimal disruption.

I agree, the cost and disrupt that would be caused is not worth the relatively modest benefits that BXD offer. The two luas lines are not that far apart really. BXD should only be built after MN when it can be built at a much lower cost. IMO DU has to be the one Leo builds, it may not open up new areas to the network but will make the most of the existing infrastructure. And, as I have said before, with DU built it will greatly strengthen the case for MN to be built also. If MN is built first there will be no appetite to spend another couple of billion on another tunnel, whereas with DU, and the benefit it will bring for commuter and intercity trains, MN will be a lot more attractive. That is the only way we will get both build in the next ten years.

strassenwo!f

dynamick wrote: »

Here is my guess for what will happen:

BXD will be built but the elements of MN that need to be built before BXD will be done first. Basic metro station boxes will be built at SSG, OC Bridge, Parnell Street.

Services diversion on Grafton Street, Westmoreland st & OCS will be carried out.

This itself will be very costly.

Four station boxes, AND service diversion.

runswithascript

According to media this morning it is looking more and more like the LUAS interconnector is going to be selected.

I am not sure which is best for the city and our Irish economy as a whole, but personally having both lines connected will be convenient, and it should have been done years ago.

dynamick

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This itself will be very costly.

Four station boxes, AND service diversion.

Service diversion has to be done no matter what. Three station boxes are needed not 4. They can just be empty concrete boxes with supporting columns. With help from the EIB, it may be feasible. And if the station boxes are not done, it kills metro and DU dead because you'd have to rip up BXD to fit them later.

oharach

dynamick wrote: »

Service diversion has to be done no matter what. Three station boxes are needed not 4. They can just be empty concrete boxes with supporting columns. With help from the EIB, it may be feasible. And if the station boxes are not done, it kills metro and DU dead because you'd have to rip up BXD to fit them later.

Fourth station box is for DU at SSG.

strassenwo!f

dynamick wrote: »

Service diversion has to be done no matter what. Three station boxes are needed not 4. They can just be empty concrete boxes with supporting columns. With help from the EIB, it may be feasible. And if the station boxes are not done, it kills metro and DU dead because you'd have to rip up BXD to fit them later.

It's four. They need two at O'Connell Bridge.

strassenwo!f

oharach wrote: »

Fourth station box is for DU at SSG.

That would be five. But I think it would probably feasible to leave that last one until later.

murphaph

Building station boxes in anticipation of a future MN/DU would be the single most forward thinking piece of decision making any minister for transport/cabinet has EVER made (in Ireland, such things happen regularly in the likes of Germany). Therefore I would be incredibly encouraged if this turned out to be the case. The government knows it is unlikely they would get the (deserved) credit in the future, should a MN or DU that had been facilitated by such a decision be built, so I/ remain sceptical but as I say, if LV and FG/Lab make such a decision, I will be heartened by it because it will be a decision in the national interest, unlikely to deliver any political points for the present government whatsoever.

Indeed, I'd fully expect our useless media to sensationalise such forward planning with the usual "white elephant x hundred million Euro concrete box" stories, which will be lapped up by a largely ignorant (and often stupid) public.

As already said, if BX goes ahead without making full provision (ie, not having to majorly interrupt BX operation later) for MN/DU, then both of these projects are effectively dead for 20 years, which would be truly tragic.

dynamick

You're right that two boxes are needed for OCS. Is it not one box for both at SSG with shared ticket hall? DU goes under MN
http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/assets/files/downloads/Railway_Works_Drawings/Area_104-CHRISTCHURCH_TO_MERRION_SQUARE/RO_Structure_Details/DU-ST_104_A-O_10.pdf

Sponge Bob

dynamick wrote: »

Here is my guess for what will happen:
BXD will be built but the elements of MN that need to be built before BXD will be done first. Basic metro station boxes will be built at SSG, OC Bridge, Parnell Street. Services diversion on Grafton Street, Westmoreland st & OCS will be carried out.

Forget about the SSG station boxes altogether ... otherwise j'suis d'accord.

If we're lucky, the EIB will agree to part finance the project (500m)

Fully finance, you could build BXD and the two OCS area boxes for €500m ...including the Transport bidge between Hawkins and Marlborough streets. EIB committed just that.

The result would be a big visible 'Luas interconnector' project that should have high ridership from day yet doesn't require a PPP and doesn't prevent MN from being built later.

As soon I heard the grandiose words 'luas interconnector' I knew it would be BXD only

monument

The on-street disruption of construction of BXD is likely to be far more widespread than the more localised Metro North disruption.

If we can afford to pay for BXD then we can afford to pay the up front amount for Metro North.

We don't start the main repayments for Metro until after around six years of construction, when the line is up and running. In the meanwhile you get 1,000s of direct and indirect jobs, a return in taxes and an economic boost.

It would be daftness -- but not that surprising -- if they go with BXD first.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Fully finance, you could build BXD and the two OCS area boxes for €500m ...including the Transport bidge between Hawkins and Marlborough streets. EIB committed just that.

No they did not.

The EIB gave preliminary approval for "up to €500m" to Metro North, and only to Metro North. The Government can't decide to take that money and use it elsewhere.

As a side note, I asked the EIB about increaser the loan amount. They said: "The final loan amount may be amended as a project changes at the request of the borrower and with additional approval from the EIB Directors."

dynamick

murphaph wrote: »

I will be heartened by it because it will be a decision in the national interest, unlikely to deliver any political points for the present government whatsoever.

Varadkar is unlikely to be in the job for more than 30 months when the first cabinet reshuffle is due. The government may well fall around this time having pushed through two further austerity budgets. So he has to expect that projects initiated by him will be delivered by someone else.

strassenwo!f

dynamick wrote: »

You're right that two boxes are needed for OCS.

Thank you.

I never felt that the RPA thought that one through terribly well.

D.L.R.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thank you.

I never felt that the RPA thought that one through terribly well.

+1.

Certainly the option to place stations at SSG, College Green, and further up O'Connell St seems to have been ignored in favour of the "wow" factor of a mid-river station. This may feed into the "vanity project" viewpoint somewhat.

monument

D.L.R. wrote: »

+1.

Certainly the option to place stations at SSG, College Green, and further up O'Connell St seems to have been ignored in favour of the "wow" factor of a mid-river station. This may feed into the "vanity project" viewpoint somewhat.

Let me get this straight: It's a "vanity project" because the RPA chose to have one station at O'Connell Bridge -- close to Luas and Dart -- rather than two stations further away from the Luas and Dart, and in places they'd likely cause more disruption. The mind boggles.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

Let me get this straight: It's a "vanity project" because the RPA chose to have one station at O'Connell Bridge -- close to Luas and Dart -- rather than two stations further away from the Luas and Dart, and in places they'd likely cause more disruption. The mind boggles.

Is it just one station, as you say, or is it actually two stations?

I mean, there's going to be two station boxes?

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Is it just one station, as you say, or is it actually two stations?

I mean, there's going to be two station boxes?

The planned station boxes at O'Connell Bridge are more entrance boxes, the main section of the station will be mined under the bridge. Quite smaller than a full station box on a fully cut and cover station.

Having entrances at both ends is little different than doing the same at any mined station. It does not equal two stations.

OurLadyofKnock

murphaph wrote: »

As already said, if BX goes ahead without making full provision (ie, not having to majorly interrupt BX operation later) for MN/DU, then both of these projects are effectively dead for 20 years, which would be truly tragic.

Unless they are using Luas BX as a metro killer?

murphaph

The station under the river with entrances onto both O'Connell St and Westmoreland St is one of the best design aspects of MN. The catchment area is effectively enlarged by a large degree by doing this as the perceived distance to the station is reduced. O'Connell bridge is not a pleasant thing to walk over in biting January wind with horizontal rail pelting you in the face, and having to wait at multiple sets of pedestrian lights to cross it helps not a jot. It is a barrier that is eliminated by having entrances on both quays.

The Germans (sorry I keep bringing them up, but they do generally build public transport infrastructure very well) almost always build as many entrances to their stations as possible to spread the catchment area. My local (elevated) S Bahn station is effectively brought closer to me by the pedestrian bridge that spans the busy arterial road between me and the station. Compare Drumcondra Station with my local one, S Bahnhof Sonnenallee. Both stations are on lines that intersect main arterial roads perpendicularly. In the Berlin example you can see they've thoughtfully included a bridge to take passengers to/from the platform over the main road so they don't need to double back on themselves and/or wait at 2 sets of pedestrian lights. These simple measures effectively increase the catchment area of public transport networks.

Stations should always be built with as many entrances as practically possible and wherever possible these entrances should bypass road traffic. O'Connell Bridge is/was? a fine example of that and it is one of the very bad things about the Interconnector designs-very limited access to those stations.

D.L.R.

monument wrote: »

Let me get this straight: It's a "vanity project" because the RPA chose to have one station at O'Connell Bridge -- close to Luas and Dart -- rather than two stations further away from the Luas and Dart, and in places they'd likely cause more disruption. The mind boggles.

2 separate stations wouldn't be further from dart/luas, nor would they cause more disruption to build.

Sponge Bob

This is the Proposed OCB Station Box which is the Only Box on O Connell St. In fact this is the only station box under the BXD route because BXD runs along Parnell Square West/Parnell St/Parnell Square South while MN runs under Parnell Square East with the station outside the Garden of Remembrance.






Source Diagrams ( from South)

Westmoreland St / O Connell Bridge /O Connell St South
http://www.dublinmetronorth.ie/Downloads/Amended%20RO%20Drawings/04-ALIGN%20DCC/20-LMN000GA107003B.pdf
O Connell St Mid/North
http://www.dublinmetronorth.ie/Downloads/Amended%20RO%20Drawings/04-ALIGN%20DCC/19-LMN000GA107002B.pdf
Parnell Sq/Dorset St Area
http://www.dublinmetronorth.ie/Downloads/Amended%20RO%20Drawings/04-ALIGN%20DCC/18-LMN000GA107001B.pdf

South of College Green MN runs under the shops west of Grafton St...not under Grafton St. Itself.

BXD and MN are only co located in essence at the top corner of SSG and from the Front Gate of TCD to the Top of O Connell St.