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

BluntGuy

ilovegermany wrote: »

A lot cheaper to build now.

People have been saying this.

But how much cheaper? What price? Where's the evidence? We won't know this until the planning permission is granted and a tenderer is chosen.

I've heard mutterings of 1.7 billion, but can a project that was costed at 5-6 billion 3 years ago really have decreased that much. I sincerely doubt it. I'd love to wrong of course, but even optimistically, my instinct says 3-4 billion at best.

crucamim

Regardless of who is to blame for the state of the economy, there is a shortage of public money - and that will probably continue to be the case for very many years. So let us get back to the Metro North fundamentals.

Is it likely to be built? If not, what are the alternatives?

Does Dublin need a rail link between its city centre and its airport? If "yes" how is Dublin managing at present?

Can buses, using the Dublin Port tunnel, not transport passengers quickly and safely between the city centre and the airport? Trains could probably do it a little bit better but would a "little bit better" justify the expenditure of ? millions building Metro North?

If a rail link between the city centre and the airport is really needed, could that not be provided by a spur from Portmarnock to the airport? Would that cost as much as Metro North?

If there is too much congestion on the Balbriggan - Connolly line to cope with the additional traffic which a link with the airport would generate, could the link from the northern line to the airport not be a shuttle? [Could the current congestion (if it is a problem) be eased by making the service between Howth Junction and Howth a shuttle?] Could rail congestion between Balbriggan and Dublin be furher eased by diverting freight trains from Navan to the proposed new port at Bremore?

If using part of the northern line (as part of a link to the airport) is being considered, could parts of the line from Portmarnock to Connolly be 4 tracked? And would making it all 4 track, including the removal of a lot of high quality housing, really cost more than what Metro North is likely to cost?

If the real problem is congestion at Connolly, why not use the under-used Docklands Station - especially as there is plenty of room for additional platforms at Docklands Station? Docklands Station could be easily connected to the northern line.

If the airport were to be linked to the city centre, via the northern line through Portmarnock, it is likely that all the trains from the airport would enter either Connolly or Docklands. Passengers could get their connecting trains there. If Docklands Station is too far from the City Centre to be a terminus for the airport (or for any other lines into Dublin), could it be linked to Connolly by an enclosed corridor either underground or elevated? [I am not thinking of the Maglev link between Birmingham airport and the nearby railway. Metro North would cost less.]

If there proves to be a market for a direct train connection between the airport and Hueston (or Maynooth) the northern line could be directly connected to the Drumcondra line somewhere between the Tolka river and Ballybough Road? I suspect that would cost more than it would be worth especially as there is no facing connection between the Phoenix Park line and the line into Hueston.

So, in the new economic climate, the merits of Metro North and the possible alternatives (if any) need to be debated purely in terms of value for money. It would be nice to have it but do we need it? I apologise for being a spoilsport.

So please, all you economists and engineers and lawyers, go to hell and leave the decision to the accountants.

ilovegermany

BluntGuy wrote: »

People have been saying this.

But how much cheaper? What price? Where's the evidence? We won't know this until the planning permission is granted and a tenderer is chosen.

I've heard mutterings of 1.7 billion, but can a project that was costed at 5-6 billion 3 years ago really have decreased that much. I sincerely doubt it. I'd love to wrong of course, but even optimistically, my instinct says 3-4 billion at best.

Overall, there has been considerable declines in the price of all the key elements making up Metro North since 2006:

1. Land and property values;
2. Running infrastructure (tracks/carraiges etc)
3. Construction Wages (even for specialists);
4. Less global demand for the big boring machines;
4. I know that many of the "Construction Indicies" are showing overall construction cost declines of anything from 20%-60%

I wouldnt like to hazard a guess because I dont know the detailed design specs. But I would be very surprised if it cost in excess of 2.5/3 billion...might even be lower (not sure if enabling costs etc are included in the figures that were previously noted)

markpb

ilovegermany wrote: »

Overall, there has been considerable declines in the price of all the key elements making up Metro North since 2006:

However the cost of borrowing money has gone up which will be a big factor in the cost of any PPP.

ilovegermany

If a rail link between the city centre and the airport is really needed, could that not be provided by a spur from Portmarnock to the airport? Would that cost as much as Metro North?


This would have a terrible impact on northern line services and neccesitate at least 4 tracking between Connolly and Portmarnock. In addition, you would be operating along existing public transport corridors and do nothing to increase public transport for north dublin.

ilovegermany

markpb wrote: »

However the cost of borrowing money has gone up which will be a big factor in the cost of any PPP.

However, with a €500 million pre-commitment from the EIB, i personally think you could still raise an extra 3 billion'ish at a decent margin. Hopefully, the markets will have settled a bit more in the meantime.

FreudianSlippers

On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the #1 and #2 biggest objectors to MN were Aircoach and Dublin Bus.

dowlingm

The fixation on the airport for Metro North misses the point. A different transport mode to the airport solves a minor amount of congestion from airport buses (and arguably introduces inflexibility into the system by forcing people down one corridor) but below ground transport generally has problems attracting riders many of whom let's not forget are dragging suitcases. Airport mode shares for transit are often woeful even when it is available and the biggest beneficiaries are workers not travellers.

The airport was simply a destination in a convenient direction from many underprovided but transit-dependent communities such as Ballymun and trip generators like the Mater and DCU. The airport was the hook, the glamour destination, and once you got to the airport it was then politicially troublesome to say it couldn't be extended to Swords. In reality, medium and high density gentrified development is how you get payback on metro lines - by way of property taxes and development charges - the airport brings the cherry on top.

spacetweek

OisinT wrote: »

On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the #1 and #2 biggest objectors to MN were Aircoach and Dublin Bus.

No, there'll always be a market for a direct non-stop(except for traffic lights) service that avoids the unwashed masses. Business travellers in particular are expensed anyway and will go for the luxury option every time.

BluntGuy wrote: »

I've heard mutterings of 1.7 billion, but can a project that was costed at 5-6 billion 3 years ago really have decreased that much. I sincerely doubt it. I'd love to wrong of course, but even optimistically, my instinct says 3-4 billion at best.

The 5-6 Bill figure included the interest payments. The project was never going to cost more than 3.5 billion and is now likely to be in the ballpark of 1.8-2.5.

spacetweek

crucamim wrote: »

Regardless of who is to blame for the state of the economy, there is a shortage of public money - and that will probably continue to be the case for very many years. So let us get back to the Metro North fundamentals.

<snip>

So, in the new economic climate, the merits of Metro North and the possible alternatives (if any) need to be debated purely in terms of value for money. It would be nice to have it but do we need it? I apologise for being a spoilsport.

Not a spoilsport, your points are good. They're correct... except for one thing. They assume, wrongly, that the only purpose of MN is to connect the city centre to the airport.

This is, in fact, merely one thing of about 10 that the line will achieve. They've been listed before in the thread many times, but I'll briefly list them off the top of my head:

- Connect airport to city centre
- Create crucial (and currently missing) north-south axis right through the city centre - very congested and poorly served corridor at present
- Supply Ballymun with transit - an area with low car ownership which was promised rail since the 1960s
- Supply Mater Hospital with transit - big trip generator
- Supply DCU with transit - students don't own cars and the college's development has been hampered by the lack of transit options over the years
- Create several new sites for new high and medium density development centred around future stations, e.g. Northwood north of Ballymun
- Connect Swords, a massive suburb almost a city in its own right, with high capacity, high speed access to Dublin
- Massive monster-sized Park&Ride north of Swords - will decongest the M1.

runway16

The biggest opposition to MN seems to be coming from some fairly predicatbale quarters.

One, is the right winger, "public transport is a subsidy to the poor" types. Obviously, they are just best ignored, because they fail to realise that improved access enhances business for their retail businesses, improves the values of their property portfolios etc etc.

The other seems to be from the Southside based commentator, because MN addresses a major public transport deficit on the Northside of Dublin, and this continues to make it more attractive for business.

Its probably no surprise that every new rail service built in Dublin thus far almost exclusively serves the southside (except for the short part of city centre luas red line).

I'd also suspect that much of the opposition is politically motivated: North Dublin is an FF strong hold, and if FF in government fail to deliver on MN, it surely wont help their prospects come election time.

BluntGuy

There is of course the third type of person who has realised that the coffers are running quite low, and that even if we could source 5-6 billion would construction of this light rail line be the best way of spending it?

I love Infrastructure, I love examining and discussing the technical details of this proposal, but there is a cold, financial reality at the end of the day.

Which brings us nicely to this minor news item, not specifically about Metro North, but its poorer cousin:

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/blow-as-metro-west-is-hit-by-more-delays-in-cash-squeeze-2215097.html

DUBLIN'S Metro West is in jeopardy after it emerged that it will not be operational until 2019 at the earliest.

Construction of the 25-km light rail line will not begin until 2015, one year after it was supposed to be up and running.

It has now emerged that the Government will make a final decision on whether to proceed with the multi-billion euro capital project next year.
The project aims to link Tallaght with Dublin Airport.

Details of the delay were given at a briefing of Tallaght-based councillors on the status of the capital project.

The Metro West project was unveiled as part of Transport 21 and had a completion date of 2014, but the economic downturn has led to a number of capital projects being "parked".

A spokesperson for the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) confirmed that Dublin's Metro North and Dart underground would be prioritised over the Metro West.

"Given the recent economic circumstances, the level of funding required for this project, along with the other large projects, is not available within the same time period and thus the completion date for Metro West has been delayed.

"Minister Dempsey has said that priority will be given to the Metro North and Dart underground and that the other projects should proceed through the planning and design processes."

Tallaght Mayor Mick Duff described the decision from the RPA and the Department of Transport as a "blow".

"Other capital programmes are being parked for the moment so it didn't come as a surprise to hear that we'll be waiting until 2019 for Metro West," he said.

The news comes just weeks after it was revealed that the Metro North will not be operational until 2016 and the Dart Underground in 2018. Both, if completed, will come on stream three years after they were originally due to start.

Metro West will provide a light rail system, similar to the existing Luas services, which will service Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan and Blanchardstown before it links up with the Metro North line at Dublin Airport.

Hardly a massive surprise, except that even 2019 is optimistic for this wasteful project.

Slideshowbob

What is the current status of the project?

Is it out to tender? in negotiations?

When is a bidder likely to be selected?

When might work commence?

Thanks

BluntGuy

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What is the current status of the project?

Is it out to tender? in negotiations?

When is a bidder likely to be selected?

When might work commence?

Thanks

Hi Slideshow,

1) Current Status is getting to the end of the planning stage. The RPA plan to obtain a railway order (effectively planning permission) for the project by 20th July (as far as I'm aware).

2) The main Metro North project has been put out to tender and two finalists have been shortlisted. An enabling works package has been put out to tender recently.

3) After the granting of the railway order.

4) This is the one for which there is no definitive answer. 2016 is the new official opening date, so far that to happen, heavy construction work would have to begin sometime next year. There is a lot of doubt about this happening given the state of the nation's finances and the difficulty in sourcing PPP finance. The EIB have pledged 500 million towards the project but with cost estimates ranging into multiple billions, it is honestly very difficult to give any kind of answer to this. We will have to wait to see what happens.

My personal prediction is that some enabling works will go ahead to give the illusion of progress, and then work will come to a halt. Others would be more optimistic, others would be even less optimistic.

Here is what the RPA say:

Based on RPA being granted a railway order for Metro North by An Bord Pleanála this phase of the project will see RPA contractors beginning work on the project.

Initially RPA will be awarding a number of enabling works contracts which are due to commence at the end of 2010 and early in 2011. This includes enabling works contracts for utility diversions; heritage works, including relocating a number of monuments either to the National Museum of Ireland or into storage for safekeeping; a temporary bridge over the river Liffey to accommodate traffic during construction of some of the Stops in the city centre; the construction of a part of the Stop box at the Mater campus; and other ancillary works to assist in ensuring the site is available for the contractor to carry out the main works.

Hope that helps,

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Slideshowbob

Thanks for the info.

If we think positively it might get going by end of year so effectively.

Would be interesting to see at what prices the 2 bidders came in at and if that can be reduced much with the construction climate at the moment.

Good time to buy something like that is now given the hunder among contractors.

Who are the final bidders? Which Irish contractors are involved?

It's a PPP projest isn't it so there is scope there for getting funding that might be otherwise harder to source.

I think the project in theory makes sense - like its a railway from Dublin airport to the capital's city centre isn't it? fairly fundamental stuff in terms of national infrastructure as long as you assume that air flight will still be viable in the coming decades as we pass peak oil. Given T2 is almost built; I gather relocating airport is not viable at this stage.

Although I always thought an airport in Wexford or the flatlands of Kildare would make an easily vaiable alternative to Dublin airport if a seemless rail route could be established.

BluntGuy

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Who are the final bidders? Which Irish contractors are involved?

Celtic Metro Group (Barclays Private Equity, Obrascon Huarte Lain, Mitsui, Soares da Costa, Iridium Concesionesde Infraestructuras S.A., CAF and MTR)
Metro Express (Macquarie Capital, Global Via Infrastructuras, Allied Irish Bank, Bombardier and Transdev RATP)

More info here:

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/metro_north/construction/Pages/June2009.aspx

These are all international contractors. It's likely Irish sub-contractors will be used during construction.

It should be noted that Barclays Private Equity exited the Celtic Metro Group consortium, which obviously doesn't send out positive signals regarding the state of PPP finance.

I think the project in theory makes sense - like its a railway from Dublin airport to the capital's city centre isn't it? fairly fundamental stuff in terms of national infrastructure as long as you assume that air flight will still be viable in the coming decades as we pass peak oil. Given T2 is almost built; I gather relocating airport is not viable at this stage.

An airport-city centre link is a big benefit of this project of course but doubts remain as to whether this was the best way to achieve an airport rail-link.

Pete_Cavan

Slideshowbob wrote: »

If we think positively it might get going by end of year so effectively.

Source: RPA | Category: METRO NORTH
Date Posted: 5/12/2010 11:01:17 AM

Construction of the enabling works for Metro North moved a step closer today with the release of the first major tender package for the diversion of utilities in the city centre at Saint Stephen’s Green.

These are both significant milestones for the project, speaking today, Frank Allen, RPA Chief Executive, said
“Major projects such as Metro North are all about meeting key milestones, RPA shortlisted two bidders last year, completed the oral hearing for the project in March this year and is now in detailed discussions with the two shortlisted bidders with a view to being able to conclude matters as quickly as possible when the Railway Order is granted. We expect this to be at the end of July as indicated by An Bord Pleanála. Commencing the enabling works procurement and the EIB decision to support the project provides RPA with the momentum needed to be ready to start construction in earnest early next year.”

http://swordslife.com/news-for-swords-dublin/swords-news.asp?id=668&title=Two Major Boosts for Metro North

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Would be interesting to see at what prices the 2 bidders came in at and if that can be reduced much with the construction climate at the moment.

But perhaps the biggest challenge ahead for the entire project will be securing the PPP finance to allow this structure of payment to operate. Sources estimate that the capital cost of the line will be about €2.8bn (with the total PPP cost likely to be about 50% more). This may seem a trifle when compared to what will be spent by Nama but there are still huge doubts as to whether the winning consortium could raise this type of funding in the current market conditions.

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=366&n=372&a=1447

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Who are the final bidders? Which Irish contractors are involved?

The two tenderers are:
Celtic Metro Group (Barclays Private Equity, Obrascon Huarte Lain, Mitsui, Soares da Costa, Iridium Concesionesde Infraestructuras S.A., CAF and MTR) and

Metro Express (Macquarie Capital, Global Via Infrastructuras, Allied Irish Bank, Bombardier and Transdev/RATP).

http://www.akc.ie/index.php?pageID=363

dowlingm

The finance for Metro North could have been raised by Government on 30 year bonds for buttons during the boom. In one sense they were shackled because borrowing to invest seems to be treated the same as borrowing to pay entitlements (like all day free travel for pensioners) so they went the PPP route to get it off the national balance sheet and please Eurostat while being able to keep handing out the sweeties which could not be afforded over the long term.

strassenwo!f

Quote:
Source: RPA | Category: METRO NORTH
Date Posted: 5/12/2010 11:01:17 AM

Construction of the enabling works for Metro North moved a step closer today with the release of the first major tender package for the diversion of utilities in the city centre at Saint Stephen’s Green.

These are both significant milestones for the project, speaking today, Frank Allen, RPA Chief Executive, said
“Major projects such as Metro North are all about meeting key milestones, RPA shortlisted two bidders last year, completed the oral hearing for the project in March this year and is now in detailed discussions with the two shortlisted bidders with a view to being able to conclude matters as quickly as possible when the Railway Order is granted. We expect this to be at the end of July as indicated by An Bord Pleanála. Commencing the enabling works procurement and the EIB decision to support the project provides RPA with the momentum needed to be ready to start construction in earnest early next year.”
http://swordslife.com/news-for-swords-dublin/swords-news.asp?id=668&title=Two Major Boosts for Metro North

So Frank and the RPA are already releasing statements they will be making on the 5th of December?

These guys are clearly steaming ahead.:p

Aidan1

and that even if we could source 5-6 billion would construction of this light rail line be the best way of spending it?

Are you Frank McDonald?

Unless you have knowledge of the tender prices submitted, you can't know how much this is likely to cost. The cash prices floated previously were of the order of €2bn, though this was a while ago (pre recession).

Secondly, calling this a 'light rail' (which is technically is) underplays it's ability to move large numbers of people - far more that Luas after all - and to/from areas which can demonstrate clear demand.

I'm not a huge fan of MN, the interconnector is far more important IMVHO, but lets not get caught up in the fetid language of the harpies in the media ...

Pete_Cavan

Just wanted to clear up the issue relating to the cost of MN. Reports suggest that tenders from the selected consortia are coming in over €2bn. This would be the initial cost which is paid for by the winning consortium. The total cost to the government over the life of the PPP contract, which I think is 25 years, would be €5 - 6bn. This is including interest and the winning consortium would also be operating and maintaining the service.

A good article which I linked before (http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=366&n=372&a=1447) says the the cost to the State between now and the day it opens will be about €100. It will then cost about €150m to €170m a year each year for 25 years afterwards. The article also makes a good point about the project employing 5,000 to 6,000 people, most of whom would otherwise be unemployed, reducing social welfare payments as well as generating a lot of tax revenue.

As with most PPP projects I think the real value to the state will be when the current contract expires, by which time most of the costs will (hopefully) be covered by the social and economic benefits arising from the project, and future contracts for operating the service will be profitable for the government, who ever that may be.

ilovegermany

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Just wanted to clear up the issue relating to the cost of MN. Reports suggest that tenders from the selected consortia are coming in over €2bn. This would be the initial cost which is paid for by the winning consortium. The total cost to the government over the life of the PPP contract, which I think is 25 years, would be €5 - 6bn. This is including interest and the winning consortium would also be operating and maintaining the service.

A good article which I linked before (http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=366&n=372&a=1447) says the the cost to the State between now and the day it opens will be about €100. It will then cost about €150m to €170m a year each year for 25 years afterwards. The article also makes a good point about the project employing 5,000 to 6,000 people, most of whom would otherwise be unemployed, reducing social welfare payments as well as generating a lot of tax revenue.

As with most PPP projects I think the real value to the state will be when the current contract expires, by which time most of the costs will (hopefully) be covered by the social and economic benefits arising from the project, and future contracts for operating the service will be profitable for the government, who ever that may be.

I agree TOTALLY

Son of Stupido

Any news on when An Bord pleanala will decide on the project?

dynamick

End of July, according to the RPA
http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/metro_north/build_and_operation_permission/Pages/default.aspx

BluntGuy

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/controls/NA0/CNA0003.pdf

30th July.

So yeah, bout a month or two we should get more details on it. It'll be interesting to see what the government say when they can't hide behind the planning process.

Crunchtime for an actual decision is fast approaching.

spacetweek

Slideshowbob wrote: »

I think the project in theory makes sense - like its a railway from Dublin airport to the capital's city centre isn't it? fairly fundamental stuff in terms of national infrastructure as long as you assume that air flight will still be viable in the coming decades as we pass peak oil. Given T2 is almost built; I gather relocating airport is not viable at this stage.

No - please read this.

I'm glad to see MW has been deferred. Hopefully this will allow some time for a decision to be reached to make it a full metro instead of the leisurely tram ride through suburbia that it will offer in its current form.

Amtmann

Article here on the construction: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/capital-braced-for-five-years-of-traffic-chaos-from-luas-and-metro-2230811.html

FreudianSlippers

Furet wrote: »

Article here on the construction: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/capital-braced-for-five-years-of-traffic-chaos-from-luas-and-metro-2230811.html

Not doing them at the same time seems utterly insane.

trellheim

and not building the boxes at least for the IC is too,.

Cool Mo D

Well they will sort of be done at the same time no matter what. To build the underground stations at Stephen's Green, O'Connell Street and Parnell Square will require all the utilities to be diverted in the area. Since this is a very long and expensive part of the Luas work - it would considerably ease construction of the Luas along a large part of the route, as tracks could be plonked straight down over the station site.

What should happen then is that the main Luas works then start while the Metro works are winding down, to avoid the traffic disruption of the two projects doing the most disruptive part of the work together, but without waiting for the Metro to be done and dusted before lifting a finger. The Luas route is even outlined in the drawings for Metro North - see here

And according to Irish Rail at least, the building of the Stephen's Green station will be coordinated between them and the RPA. http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/interconnector_A2.pdf

FreudianSlippers

Wouldn't it be a better idea and save a lot of money to not build MN underground the whole way since Luas BXD is already proposed?

Basically, axe MN from Stephen's Green entirely. Build BXD as planned from start to finish.
Then, from the Grangegorman stop of BXD, some of the trains continue on to Boombridge while some cars verge off to the right and go underground from there to the Mater stop as shown below (excuse my quick and crude photoshop) and the rest of the MN route as planned - i.e. above ground at DCU.

Edited Map (it is a solid blue line, but it represents a tunnel):





An idea of where there is ample room to begin a tunnel:





Showing the rest of the stops post Mater:

L1011

As when someone else, or possibly you on another thread? suggested this before: No. There aren't enough slots, doing that would massacare service on MN.

dynamick

OisinT wrote: »

Wouldn't it be a better idea and save a lot of money to not build MN underground the whole way since Luas BXD is already proposed?

BXD is on-street and will do well to achieve 15-20km/h avg speeds, with 15 trams per hour.

MN, being full segregated from other traffic, is designed for 35km/h avg speed and 30 trams/hour.

so you can't join an on-street tram to a segregated service.

runway16

dynamick wrote: »

BXD is on-street and will do well to achieve 15-20km/h avg speeds, with 15 trams per hour.

MN, being full segregated from other traffic, is designed for 35km/h avg speed and 30 trams/hour.

so you can't join an on-street tram to a segregated service.

Plus, it would mean MN didnt integrate with Interconnector or the Green line except by taking a tram ride between the two. Would you take a longish metro ride, get off, go upstairs, take a piddly tram ride for a mile or so, get off, go downstairs again to get the interconnector. Probably not.. it makes the service less attractive.

Cool Mo D

MYOB wrote:

As when someone else, or possibly you on another thread? suggested this before: No. There aren't enough slots, doing that would massacare service on MN.

That's a circular argument. If BXD ran in a tunnel with Metro North, it would be just as fast, obviously, and your argument would be moot.

Metro North does not need 30 trains per hour. 12-20 trains per hour at peak, and 8-12 off peak would be way more than adequate for the next 20 years. It has a capacity of 40 trains per hour, and more if better signalling is used.
With 10 trains per hour, it can match the peak hour capacity of the current DART line.

There is clearly plenty of room to route 8-15 BXD trams per hour down the Metro North tunnel.

I would say that this is only worthwhile if line B joined the tunnel at Stephen's Green, and BXD joined Metro North underground at Parnell square with a grade separated junction, and it could well be cost prohibitive, but the capacity in the tunnel will not be an issue for years and years to come. Look at the Oslo metro - very similar to the planned Metro North, with 3 branches feeding into a single tunnel at each end.

If Metro North is extended south to Terenure via Harold's cross, and Luas B uses the tunnel, we start moving towards a metro/ fast light rail network rather than a single line.

The point is that the city centre tunnel is by far the most expensive bit - if it is built, it should be sweated for all the use it can give as soon as possible. If it is not too expensive, they should of course link B and BXD through Metro North. There is rakes of capacity.

Aard

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The point is that the city centre tunnel is by far the most expensive bit - if it is built, it should be sweated for all the use it can give as soon as possible. If it is not too expensive, they should of course link B and BXD through Metro North. There is rakes of capacity.

This.


The Stephen's Green to Parnell Sq route seems to be the most trafficked in the city, both by motor or by foot. I would think that a turnback facility at Drumcondra, despite its expense, would prove useful. If every 3rd train ran from SSG to Drumcondra, then came back, the central tunnel would have the high frequency it needs. It would give people in town, and transfer-commuters to Drumcondra a high-frequency, while not "wasting" trains by going further out of the city.

Pete_Cavan

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I would say that this is only worthwhile if line B joined the tunnel at Stephen's Green, and BXD joined Metro North underground at Parnell square with a grade separated junction, and it could well be cost prohibitive, but the capacity in the tunnel will not be an issue for years and years to come. Look at the Oslo metro - very similar to the planned Metro North, with 3 branches feeding into a single tunnel at each end.

If Metro North is extended south to Terenure via Harold's cross, and Luas B uses the tunnel, we start moving towards a metro/ fast light rail network rather than a single line.

The point is that the city centre tunnel is by far the most expensive bit - if it is built, it should be sweated for all the use it can give as soon as possible. If it is not too expensive, they should of course link B and BXD through Metro North. There is rakes of capacity.

I dont think it would be possible because the tunnel mouth would have to be very large to allow a reasonable gradient for trams to come up from 20m below the surface to street level. Basically you would have to dig out all of St Stephens Green to allow for this. Thats why tunnel mouths are outside the city centre and run underground beneeth the city.

Aard wrote: »

I would think that a turnback facility at Drumcondra, despite its expense, would prove useful. If every 3rd train ran from SSG to Drumcondra, then came back, the central tunnel would have the high frequency it needs. It would give people in town, and transfer-commuters to Drumcondra a high-frequency, while not "wasting" trains by going further out of the city.

I like the idea of a turnback facility, would make sense to concentrate trains in the city centre instead of sending every one out to whereever the last stop is. Maybe the turnback facility should be somewhere around Ballymum, when the trains come above ground. Its not that much further than Drumcondra and would be a lot cheaper and easier to have it above ground, plenty of space out there as well Im sure.

Aard

AFAIK, there is bored-tunnel all the way from SSG to DCU, then cut-and-cover until the M50. That'd be more than twice the distance from Drumcondra.

Pete_Cavan

Aard wrote: »

AFAIK, there is bored-tunnel all the way from SSG to DCU, then cut-and-cover until the M50. That'd be more than twice the distance from Drumcondra.

Not sure whats thats supposed to mean. I was agreeing with you that a turnback facility to allow higher frequency close to the city centre is a good idea instead of sending every train out to Belinstown. But having it at Drumcondra would be to expensive as you would have to bore out a large area. I suggested having it somewhere around Ballymun when the track comes above ground, so at Northwood or Dardistown stops because there would be no boring involved and it would be a lot cheaper. I know these places wont need the high frequency service, but its the most cost effective way of providing a high frequency service for the city centre and the surrounding area.

Aard

What I meant was that if the turnback was as far as the M50, then there wouldn't be much point in building it for the application I suggested. There are, however, merits for a turnback where you suggested (i.e. keeping the highest frequency in the contiguous urban area), but it's a little different than for my suggestion of the SSG-Drumcondra corridor. Heck, if the money was there, then let's build both!

BluntGuy

The current plans include a turnback facility of sorts provided north of the Airport.

This will allow high-frequency Airport-City Centre services without having to send trams to Swords and undeveloped fields north.

ilovegermany

Given that Metro North, as proposed, includes an underground station and turnback facility at St. Stephens Green - if in future years the Metro was extended southwards - would there still have to be a huge amount of disruption at the Green area? Or would they just need a place to extract/insert the tunnel boring machines (TBM)?

Cool Mo D

ilovegermany wrote: »

Given that Metro North, as proposed, includes an underground station and turnback facility at St. Stephens Green - if in future years the Metro was extended southwards - would there still have to be a huge amount of disruption at the Green area? Or would they just need a place to extract/insert the tunnel boring machines (TBM)?

I heard that they're actually leaving the TBM's in place, and stripping the removable parts, as it's cheaper than tunneling to the surface to take the lot out.

BluntGuy

ilovegermany wrote: »

Given that Metro North, as proposed, includes an underground station and turnback facility at St. Stephens Green - if in future years the Metro was extended southwards - would there still have to be a huge amount of disruption at the Green area? Or would they just need a place to extract/insert the tunnel boring machines (TBM)?

Not an engineer, but could give an educated guess.

The running tunnels for MN are actually slightly extended southward (200m siding tunnels) to cater for this possibility. The turnback is at a different grade, so I wouldn't envisage significant disruption for the green. Where I would envisage significant problems would be trying to find a location for the tunnel portals, as well as integration with the Metro line- upgrade of stations, communications etc.

ilovegermany

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I heard that they're actually leaving the TBM's in place, and stripping the removable parts, as it's cheaper than tunneling to the surface to take the lot out.

Seriously, is that true?

ilovegermany

BluntGuy wrote: »

Not an engineer, but could give an educated guess.

The running tunnels for MN are actually slightly extended southward (200m siding tunnels) to cater for this possibility. The turnback is at a different grade, so I wouldn't envisage significant disruption for the green. Where I would envisage significant problems would be trying to find a location for the tunnel portals, as well as integration with the Metro line- upgrade of stations, communications etc.

Thanks BluntGuy - I know that all the transport plans etc call for the Metro to be extended along the Sandyford Luas line, but do you think it would probably make more sense to eventually run the metro through a few new stations and then link further out around Dundrum - with the metro taking over the existing luas line from there and the luas veering off to serve Churchtown/Rathfarnham?

markpb

ilovegermany wrote: »

Seriously, is that true?

I don't know about MN but it's certainly not an uncommon scenario.

Cool Mo D

What I would like to see in the far, far distant future, if Metro North is built and planned to be extended, is to extend Metro North, AND link in the green Luas.

Extend Metro North towards Terenure, but have it cross the Green line near Ranelagh. The Green line would enter the Metro North tunnel here, and both Metro North trains and the Green line would run under the city in the main Metro North tunnel. The Green line trams would then surface near Parnell square, and head towards Broombridge/Finglas, and Metro North would continue to the Airport.

Pete_Cavan

Cool Mo D wrote: »

What I would like to see in the far, far distant future, if Metro North is built and planned to be extended, is to extend Metro North, AND link in the green Luas.

Extend Metro North towards Terenure, but have it cross the Green line near Ranelagh. The Green line would enter the Metro North tunnel here, and both Metro North trains and the Green line would run under the city in the main Metro North tunnel. The Green line trams would then surface near Parnell square, and head towards Broombridge/Finglas, and Metro North would continue to the Airport.

Im not an engineer but I very much doubt this would work because I dont think it would be possible to have tunnel portals in Ranelagh or Sarnell Square. The tunnel portals need a lot of space because the trams have to come up from a depth of about 20m at a reasonable gradient. The opening would have to be quite large and the area above the tunnel before it reaches the surface would have to be free of foundations which could be undermined. There is no way this could happen in the city centre and I dont think there is a big enough space in Ranelagh.

ilovegermany wrote: »

Thanks BluntGuy - I know that all the transport plans etc call for the Metro to be extended along the Sandyford Luas line, but do you think it would probably make more sense to eventually run the metro through a few new stations and then link further out around Dundrum - with the metro taking over the existing luas line from there and the luas veering off to serve Churchtown/Rathfarnham?

This would make sense, underground stops at Rathmines and Terenure before it comes above ground to link to the existing line. Should be more space to have the tunnel portal out here. Some of the stops on Line B1 seem quite close together, would this prevent the metro trams from using them and would the platforms be big enough? Also it would need a turnback facility to allow high frequency around the city centre, like Aard suggested for the northern section above. Would there be room for this at Sandyford allowing high frequency trams between Sandyford and the airport?

Aard

I think the prevailing thought is that the only place on the Green line where a tunnel could surface would be around Beechwood. Ranelagh is on a bridge, as is Milltown and Dundrum. It would be impossible for the Luas to veer off towards Churchtown, and the southern section of the Green line to be replaced by Metro from Terenure or somewhere.