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

robd

lxflyer wrote: »

Also, routing the interconnector via the wide arc means that the intersection of the two DART lines can take place at Pearse - which is far better suited to such a facility than Tara Street due to it having a much bigger station area.

This is a very significant point. Irish Rail have in effect been building infrastructure around this routing.

• Pearse Station had a new entrance built (opened earlier this year) which sits above where the Dart Underground is intended to run.
• There's only a certain route it's possible to take from Docklands lines to get into a tunnel. Irish Rail sold off everything else during the boom.

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

I think it's safe to add 'disingenuous' to 'obtuse' to describe your posts and arguments.

Where did I suggest 'disruption' was the reason College Green was not selected?

Jack Noble wrote: »

I never mentioned disruption re CG or OCS - anywhere.

I've used it regarding two other areas - Heuston Station and SSG.

Jack Noble wrote: »

Once again, where did I suggest 'disruption' in the context of CG and OCS?

I've stated the reasons why SSG and OCB stops were selected for DU/MN and MN respectively - disruption was not one of them that I cited.

You are quite correct. You didn't actually say that disruption would have been an issue at College Green.

However, it was surely implied in this post, from a couple of pages back:

Jack Noble wrote: »

College Green was/is never an option for another obvious reason.

SSG is an option because, apart from the really obvious reason of being at the very heart, in ever respect, of the southside of Dublin city centre, there is also plenty of space to build the required deep underground interchange station without causing too much disruption to the commercial life of the city. And that is also why it was selected.

The implication being that other locations would not have had this space, and hence there would have been too much disruption at those locations.

Jack Noble

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You are quite correct. You didn't actually say that disruption would have been an issue at College Green.

However, it was surely implied in this post, from a couple of pages back:



The implication being that other locations would not have had this space, and hence there would have been too much disruption at those locations.

It was not implied at all. That's a statement about SSG not CG and not OCS.

Quit digging - at the rate you're going here you'll find yourself in a bigger hole than the one required for the Metro-Dart station at SSG.

Grandeeod

Jack Noble wrote: »

It was not implied at all. That's a statement about SSG not CG and not OCS.

Quit digging - at the rate you're going here you'll find yourself in a bigger hole than the one required for the Metro-Dart station at SSG.

It does look like you implied that other areas would cause more disruption.

Grandeeod

lxflyer wrote: »

I think it is apt to point out that prior to LUAS arriving, Dublin Bus operated two bus routes from Heuston Station.

One was the 90 to Connolly and the IFSC and the other was the 92 to St Stephen's Green and Leeson Street.

Post-Network Direct, there is now the 145 following the 92 route every 10 minutes, all of the Lucan Road buses (25/a/b, 26, 66/a/b, 67) have been extended cross-city to Merrion Square (half via St Stephen's Green) and all of the Navan Road buses (37, 38/a/b, 39/a, 70) have also been extended cross-city to Baggot Street via St Stephen's Green.

Now if that does not suggest that there is demand for public transport in the south city centre, I don't know what will. Are you seriously suggesting strassenwo!f that DB did that because there was no demand there?

There is clearly significant demand for public transport in that area of the city.

Also, routing the interconnector via the wide arc means that the intersection of the two DART lines can take place at Pearse - which is far better suited to such a facility than Tara Street due to it having a much bigger station area.

And don't forget that since the 1980s BE have been running Kildare/Naas services direct to SSG and back again in the peak.

Jack Noble

Grandeeod wrote: »

It does look like you implied that other areas would cause more disruption.

No, I didn't. I was talking about SSG.

Certain people have become fixated that 'disruption' nixed CG or OCS/GPO as a location for a Metro-Dart interchange. It did not.

SSG was chosen because it is a much better location for that station for the reasons outlined earlier in this thread and in others.

Major infrastructure projects like Metro stations will always cause a degree of disruption and inconvenience for some people - but proper planning and good project management will minimise that disruption.

Examples in Ireland are the Port Tunnel, Luas, the M50 upgrade and the current Newlands Cross flyover.

Here's a very similar project to Metro North which is under construction through the heart of a historic city centre and in which 'disruption' is minimised while life goes on around it - Line M4 of the Budapest Metro. It includes tie-ins with two busy railway stations and a major interchange with an existing underground metro line.

http://www.metro4.hu/index.php?lang_id=en&menu=1

LXFlyer

Grandeeod wrote: »

And don't forget that since the 1980s BE have been running Kildare/Naas services direct to SSG and back again in the peak.

Not just Kildare/Naas, the 100X, 101X, 109, 111, and 120 all have services operating to that area as well.

strassenwo!f

Now that my working week is nearly over, I'd like to answer a couple of questions which came up in the course of last week's discussion.

Victor wrote: »

Take a look at this zoning map. www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Documents/MapsetE.pdf

Adjusting it for actual current use shows that (a) D2 is more commercial than D1/7/8. and (b) it lacks a strong east west transport route (not including the quays or the Grand Canal). Further, it makes little sense for DART Underground to directly compete with the Luas Red Line, so it makes sense to move the line somewhat south.

An important issue here is the phrase, "compete with the LUAS red line"

A more central interconnector route (through, for example, College Green) would not be competing with the LUAS red line. The red line brings people on a journey between Tallaght and the City, with much of the city centre section being fairly slow.

The interconnector, on the other hand, is intended to carry people rapidly between the suburbs and the city. The current plan is for the western interconnector to just feed lines to and from Hazelhatch. Were the experience of other cities to be taken into account, some offshoots from the main interconnector Hazelhatch line would be planned, to cover other western suburbs and give them a direct, rapid connection with the city.

There was indeed a heavy rail connection between the city and Tallaght (the county's second biggest population centre), in the original heavy rail plan for Dublin in the seventies.

Unfortunately, that proposed line has now apparently been planned out of potential existence by "planners".

Nevertheless, there are other areas of West Dublin which could benefit from a rapid, direct connection with the city centre, (wherever in the city), using the capacity of the interconnector.

In addition, there is also no evidence available yet that people in areas along the northside DART line have shown a greater preference for the area around St. Stephen's Green than simply "to get rapidly into the city".

The interconnector is a high-capacity rapid rail line across the city, which can deliver many people rapidly into and out of the city. The LUAS is a tram line, trundling across the city, which (according to the current plans) does not serve areas which will be served by the interconnector.

They are not competitors.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

I think it is apt to point out that prior to LUAS arriving, Dublin Bus operated two bus routes from Heuston Station.

One was the 90 to Connolly and the IFSC and the other was the 92 to St Stephen's Green and Leeson Street.

Post-Network Direct, there is now the 145 following the 92 route every 10 minutes, all of the Lucan Road buses (25/a/b, 26, 66/a/b, 67) have been extended cross-city to Merrion Square (half via St Stephen's Green) and all of the Navan Road buses (37, 38/a/b, 39/a, 70) have also been extended cross-city to Baggot Street via St Stephen's Green.

Now if that does not suggest that there is demand for public transport in the south city centre, I don't know what will. Are you seriously suggesting strassenwo!f that DB did that because there was no demand there?

There is clearly significant demand for public transport in that area of the city.

Also, routing the interconnector via the wide arc means that the intersection of the two DART lines can take place at Pearse - which is far better suited to such a facility than Tara Street due to it having a much bigger station area.

There is a lot of demand to get to St. Stephen's Green, and extra routes there proves that. I've said on this thread. But as I have also said, there is significant demand to get to other areas of the city as well.

The interconnector cannot serve everywhere on its route between the east and west of the city. What we haven't seen are figures that there is greater demand to get to St. Stephen's Green than to more central parts of the city.

For example, were the metro/DART interchange to be built in a more central location like College Green, wouldn't people just be able to take the interconnector into the centre of the city and then change to go to St. Stephen's Green, as they do in other cities?

It seems simple enough to me, as it would save a lot of money (building a shorter route) but apparently there are these mysterious "obvious problems" with College Green.

I've heard it so many times, and I still can't figure out what these "obvious problems" are.

The closest I've got to it is that Dubliners wouldn't want to see a big hole in College Green, as a result of temporarily lifting up a few statues and a few hundred metres of tarmac (which could be replaced when the work is done).

Apparently Dubliners would be much more comfortable with the constructors digging the same big hole in St. Stephen's Green instead, uprooting a whole load of mature trees, a pond, and generally decimating one section of a much-loved park, which will take donkey's years to recover.

strassenwo!f

robd wrote: »

This is a very significant point. Irish Rail have in effect been building infrastructure around this routing.

• Pearse Station had a new entrance built (opened earlier this year) which sits above where the Dart Underground is intended to run.
• There's only a certain route it's possible to take from Docklands lines to get into a tunnel. Irish Rail sold off everything else during the boom.

Yes, that's right. They have been building infrastructure around this routing, in anticipitation of ABP giving a favourable response to their railway order, which ABP duly did.

ABP also said that the location of the metro/DART interchange at St. Stephen's Green was a national transport policy based on two things.

Firstly, the work of the then defunct DTO.

Under the original DRRTS proposal back in the seventies, there was originally a plan to build the interchange between the proposed major North/South and East/West lines in Temple Bar. Nothing happened with this. As Temple Bar was built up, you might have expected that alternative, neighbouring locations would have been looked at, perhaps College Green or O'Connell Street.

Instead, the DTO in St. Stephen's Green came along, and Minister Mammy (terrified of disruption in the city centre) came along with her decision to stop the LUAS at St. Stephen's Green.

So, instead of any proper analysis of potential, busy city centre locations for a major interchange between high-capacity east-west and north-south rail lines, the whole interchange was moved lock, stock and barrel several hundred metres to the south. With no demand figures ever produced.

A few years later, Martin Cullen effectively did an Anglo and produced a transport plan out of nowhere, with St. Stephen's Green suddenly becoming Grand Central, and names like metro north being based on his times as a student in New York.

(At the time of the Tiger, becoming transport policy wasn't all that difficult).

There have been a number of occasions on this thread where other posters have been encouraging me to read various transport plans for Dublin. I've read them all in detail, with the exception of the 2011 plan (which effectively pays homage to the earlier plans of this century).

Not one of the (apparently) five documents, produced over the last 50 years and repeatedly mentioned recently in this thread, and also not the presentation to ABP, includes any analysis of the obvious direct route between Heuston and Spencer Dock, via Christchurch and a true city centre location like College Green/Dame Street.

LXFlyer

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There is a lot of demand to get to St. Stephen's Green, and extra routes there proves that. I've said on this thread. But as I have also said, there is significant demand to get to other areas of the city as well.

The interconnector cannot serve everywhere on its route between the east and west of the city. What we haven't seen are figures that there is greater demand to get to St. Stephen's Green than to more central parts of the city.

For example, were the metro/DART interchange to be built in a more central location like College Green, wouldn't people just be able to take the interconnector into the centre of the city and then change to go to St. Stephen's Green, as they do in other cities?

It seems simple enough to me, as it would save a lot of money (building a shorter route) but apparently there are these mysterious "obvious problems" with College Green.

I've heard it so many times, and I still can't figure out what these "obvious problems" are.

The closest I've got to it is that Dubliners wouldn't want to see a big hole in College Green, as a result of temporarily lifting up a few statues and a few hundred metres of tarmac (which could be replaced when the work is done).

Apparently Dubliners would be much more comfortable with the constructors digging the same big hole in St. Stephen's Green instead, uprooting a whole load of mature trees, a pond, and generally decimating one section of a much-loved park, which will take donkey's years to recover.

Anyone wanting to go to O'Connell Bridge can hop on the LUAS. That provides a high capacity route to that area of the city - why effectively duplicate it?

It's about opening new journey opportunities. The route links Heuston with the CBD and the second DART line at Pearse which is by far the most suitable location for such a facility.

monument

I don't buy the idea a route only around 1km shorter would add up to much savings.

And, even if it did, those savings would be wiped out by the extra costs of a station at Collage Green or O'Connell Bridge vs St Stephen's Green.

At this stage you also have to factor in the cost of one route having planning and the other having nothing on the drawing board.

Victor

strassenwo!f wrote: »

An important issue here is the phrase, "compete with the LUAS red line"

A more central interconnector route (through, for example, College Green) would not be competing with the LUAS red line. The red line brings people on a journey between Tallaght and the City, with much of the city centre section being fairly slow.

The most important piece of the Red Line is from Heuston to Connolly, you would risk competing with this unnecessarily, while neglecting other areas.

Hibbeler

With the recent announcement that the government are hoping to put forward a bid to host the Rugby World Cup in 2023. Do you guys think that should a bid be likely to be successful that increased emphasis would be placed on actually getting the likes of metro north and dart underground actually built?

strassenwo!f

Victor wrote: »

The most important piece of the Red Line is from Heuston to Connolly, you would risk competing with this unnecessarily, while neglecting other areas.

Victor, I am aware that the "planners" have apparently made it very difficult for there ever to be any chance of a rapid rail connection between the two biggest population centres in Dublin, via the interconnector (as originally planned).

But why do you say that the Heuston-Connolly part of the Red Line is the most important bit?

I'd have thought that the connection between Tallaght and the City is the most important piece.

(It should be, if it's never going to be any better).

maninasia

Jack Noble wrote: »

Finance is not the only problem but current lack of political will.

If the government really wanted to proceed with Metro or Dart or both, then the finance via long-term PPPs could be sourced alongside State resources and revenues raised on the back of the projects, eg planning levies and a guaranteed share of fare revenue.

However, the current govt has shown it is not interested in large scale infrastructure projects as it is concentrating on smaller local projects around the country and the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Also, current spending commitments have been prioritised over capital spending since FG-Lab came to power in Feb 2011 and that will remain the case for the next two years, at least.

That said, there is a quiet effort going on to progress Dart Underground in the next capital spending round post 2015/16 via exchequer funding, EU funds, and PPP given the more favourable market sentiment towards Ireland.

But ultimately it's down to an improved econonic environment in 2015/16 and Cabinet approval - and there is no guarantee of either, never mind both.

Respectively I think you are making excuses that it is not particularly a financial problem. It is 100% a financial problem with the planning approved for much of Metro North etc. The capital spending budget has been slashed to almost zero over the last few years to cover holes in other areas (as you have mentioned). Even if they were interested to proceed with this project , they couldn't do it due to severe financial constraints.

Of course the government can wait until the 'future'. Which seems to be the perennial answer.

The fact is the money is out there in other regions of the world, the government doesn't have to source the money from the EU. The EU is the not best place to look for the cash to do this. I don't know why the limited vision. I've given the links about funding sources from China/Japan and projects they are bidding on in other countries (countries that are more unstable than Ireland) and they've been summarily ignored. I guess that is the group think that passes for think in Ireland. A lot of talking and waiting around for the Masters in Germany to approve things, maybe, someday. Meanwhile let's talk about lines and stations on maps.

monument

maninasia wrote: »

Respectively I think you are making excuses that it is not particularly a financial problem. It is 100% a financial problem with the planning approved for much of Metro North etc. The capital spending budget has been slashed to almost zero over the last few years to cover holes in other areas (as you have mentioned). Even if they were interested to proceed with this project , they couldn't do it due to severe financial constraints.

As explained by Ossian, it's not really a financial issue, it's a political one...

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Metro North would cost about €200m/year out of a gross national spend of €70bn.

In the last budget, a tax break for tourism was announced at an annual cost of €350m while an air travel tax was repealed at an annual cost of €36m. A TV licence tax of €200m per year is collected and used principally as a welfare payment for RTE. These are the freely made spending choices of the government.

ESRI estimated that cutting hotel VAT would give a negative return on investment to the state, but this was ignored.

Now that ten year borrowing rates have fallen to 3.5%, the National Development Finance Agency's PPP programme has reopened for business with €1.4bn of projects announced including three major roads projects, Grangegorman DIT and bottler's primary care centres.

Meanwhile, the capital budget for transport projects fell €300m in 2013 compared to 2012. Fine Gael clearly sees public transport as a cost to be shorn rather than a place to invest. Rightly or wrongly, the government sees little value in public transport and is running it down. This is not for lack of money but a consequence of their value system.

maninasia wrote: »

Of course the government can wait until the 'future'. Which seems to be the perennial answer.

The fact is the money is out there in other regions of the world, the government doesn't have to source the money from the EU. The EU is the not best place to look for the cash to do this. I don't know why the limited vision. I've given the links about funding sources from China/Japan and projects they are bidding on in other countries (countries that are more unstable than Ireland) and they've been summarily ignored. I guess that is the group think that passes for think in Ireland. A lot of talking and waiting around for the Masters in Germany to approve things, maybe, someday. Meanwhile let's talk about lines and stations on maps.

We don't seek the funding from any one or two countries, the funding for the PPP comes from the bidders and, when DU or Metro are built, we service that from funding available to us (likely open bond markets).

For large investment project the European Investment Bank is likely to give the lowest interist rates.

maninasia

You still haven't bothered commenting on my links to other sources of funding , which doesn't really surprise me to be honest. I'm just seeing a lot of things being repeated as mantras for no good reason. We need 'to do it this way..and this way'.
I get that the government has allocated some funding for capital projects, but the capital budget has been completely slashed, and it will be difficult to get PPP partners due to uncertainty regarding our financial situation . So we could use other sovereign nation funds to back the project and in return they can get first dibs on the contract. Of course that will piss off lots of people who already have designs on this project.

Jack Noble

maninasia wrote: »

You still haven't bothered commenting on my links to other sources of funding , which doesn't really surprise me to be honest. I'm just seeing a lot of things being repeated as mantras for no good reason. We need 'to do it this way..and this way'.
I get that the government has allocated some funding for capital projects, but the capital budget has been completely slashed, and it will be difficult to get PPP partners due to uncertainty regarding our financial situation . So we could use other sovereign nation funds to back the project and in return they can get first dibs on the contract. Of course that will piss off lots of people who already have designs on this project.

You suggested Chinese or Japanese sources but, according to John Corrigan, head of the National Treasury Management Agency - which sells and manages Irish sovereign debt - Ireland is currently locked out of Asian debt markets because Irish debt is rated as 'junk' by Moodys which prevents many institutions from purchasing it.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/moodys-upgrade-needed-to-rouse-asian-investors-29762041.html

Mr Corrigan said an upgrade would make a big difference in terms of the so-called marginal borrower.
"The fact that we are in sub-investment grade from Moody's has largely sidelined Asian investors from the point of view of potential interest in the Irish market," he said.
"In all these things it's the marginal investor who makes the difference in terms of moving the yield up and down."

Until Moodys upgrades Irish debt to investment grade - and no one can say when that will be or even if it will happen at all - Chinese or Japanese debt will not be on the radar for investments backed by the Irish State.

As for European money, up to 30% funding is available from the EU for Dart Underground because it is considered a priority transport project under the EU's Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) programme. DartU (and Metro) are also eligible for cheap loans under from the European Investment Bank up to €500m.

But the entire DartU programme - tunnel section and stations, electrification of the Northern, Maynooth and Kildare lines, spur from Clongriffin to Dublin Airport and additional electric rolling stock - comes in at circa €4billion.

Even with EU, EIB and PPP funding, it would still require around €1bn from the exchequer to begin construction.

And that is very much a political decision.

Now and for the foreseeable future, this government is prioritising current spending over capital spending - and what capital spending it is doing is on small projects and maintenance schemes over large scale infrastructure projects like Dart and Metro or a key motorway scheme like the M20 between Cork and Limerick.

Put simply, there is now way this FG-Labour coalition is going to pony up €1bn for Dart Underground when at the same time it is cutting circa €1bn from the health budget - even if it was spread over a number of years to lesson the annual financial burden.

TheBandicoot

Jack Noble wrote: »

spur from Clongriffin to Dublin Airport

Is this now officially part of the DU package? I thought it was just a proposal by IE. I mean, it doesn't have a RO or anything yet, does it, or even detailed plans/EIS?

Jack Noble

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Is this now officially part of the DU package? I thought it was just a proposal by IE. I mean, it doesn't have a RO or anything yet, does it, or even detailed plans/EIS?

It's not officially part of the plans but IE are prepared to do it if the Govt wants it and sanctions it. And it was mentioned that IE planned to include it in revised Dart plans as reported in the Independent earlier this year - that's why I included it above.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/airport-link-tunnel-included-in-expanded-dart-plan-29479191.html

But that's a minor point really - the important issues are that there is no magic source of untapped cash for Ireland in the Far East and, even if there was, it's still a political decision for a govt whose near-term spending priorities simply don't include massive transport infrastucture projects.

Victor

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But why do you say that the Heuston-Connolly part of the Red Line is the most important bit?

It is the busiest section and joins up Heuston Station (increasingly a bus hub) with O'Connell Bridge and Busáras/Connolly.

Sam Russell

The Gov could easily do the electrification work on Connolly to Maynooth. The Clongriffin to Airport is a simple grren field route of 5km or so so should be simple and cheap to do.

The Dart Underground would then be a major job requiring large funding, with Metro North then running off it. Using existig lines would reduce the cost (and possibly benefits) but if that meant it got built, isn't that better? Not the best result possible, but a result with possibilities.

We have built Luas lines out to the sticks where no-one lives, and ghost stations where the trams do not even stop. At least these projects will have passengers willing to travel.

Cool Mo D

Surely an Airport spur from the Maynooth line from between Broombridge and Ashtown, routed just west of Finglas would be better than a spur off the Northern line?

The route would be about the same total distance to Connolly, but avoids adding more trains onto the congested Northern line. It could run as an airport express much more easily because of a less congested route with few intermediate stations. It would be a bit more expensive to construct, but no major tunnelling or anything really expensive.

Electrification to Maynooth should be done ASAP. Electrification to Drogheda would be a good move, as the better acceleration of electric trains would get journey times down for a route that is suffering because of congestion with DART services.

robd

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Surely an Airport spur from the Maynooth line from between Broombridge and Ashtown, routed just west of Finglas would be better than a spur off the Northern line?

The route would be about the same total distance to Connolly, but avoids adding more trains onto the congested Northern line. It could run as an airport express much more easily because of a less congested route with few intermediate stations. It would be a bit more expensive to construct, but no major tunnelling or anything really expensive.

Electrification to Maynooth should be done ASAP. Electrification to Drogheda would be a good move, as the better acceleration of electric trains would get journey times down for a route that is suffering because of congestion with DART services.

The main reason for not doing either of these projects is that it would reduce the case for both Dart Underground & Metro North. Neither the RPA or Irish Rail want to bite their own arm off. Hence they'll both steer away from either of these suggestions.

There is a big problem in Connolly too. With some CPO'ing, knocking down of now disused sheds and reconfig of lines I reckon 2 lines could be segregated out on the Maynooth Line into Connolly from the North-South DART line, so they won't interfere with each other. Maynooth line trains could then terminate in Connolly. However, this won't happen for same reason as above.

Ahh company politics !!!

Sam Russell

robd wrote: »

The main reason for not doing either of these projects is that it would reduce the case for both Dart Underground & Metro North. Neither the RPA or Irish Rail want to bite their own arm off. Hence they'll both steer away from either of these suggestions.

There is a big problem in Connolly too. With some CPO'ing, knocking down of now disused sheds and reconfig of lines I reckon 2 lines could be segregated out on the Maynooth Line into Connolly from the North-South DART line, so they won't interfere with each other. Maynooth line trains could then terminate in Connolly. However, this won't happen for same reason as above.

Ahh company politics !!!

If you accept that not doing either project because it reduces the case for DU would suggest DU is not needed. Both projects could go ahead now as they could be afforded. DU would not even be started because of the funding before these two projects would be finnished if they had the commitment to go ahead. Heuston to Airport to Clongriffin to Connoly Dart makes sense. Connolly to Maynooth Dart makes sense. Extend Dart to Drogheda makes sense.

Extending both Luas lines into the sticks never made sense. Luas lines should form a network within the canals, and be the prefered method of short hop journeys.

robd

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you accept that not doing either project because it reduces the case for DU would suggest DU is not needed. Both projects could go ahead now as they could be afforded. DU would not even be started because of the funding before these two projects would be finnished if they had the commitment to go ahead. Heuston to Airport to Clongriffin to Connoly Dart makes sense. Connolly to Maynooth Dart makes sense. Extend Dart to Drogheda makes sense.

Extending both Luas lines into the sticks never made sense. Luas lines should form a network within the canals, and be the prefered method of short hop journeys.

I don't particularly disagree with anything you say. I'm really just reasoning the thinking that big organisations like the RPA and Irish Rail have. They want the super big project.

There are other issues with electrification as a standalone project though. Irish Rail have a huge stock of Diesel Electric trains. These have about 30 years of service left (40 years total). Perhaps they could be retrofitted but throwing them out after only 10-15 years or service is wasteful in the current climate. Retrofitting would't be cheap as would be a custom job, much like building a new train.

robd

Sam Russell wrote: »

Heuston to Airport to Clongriffin to Connoly Dart makes sense.

I've actually changed my mind on this. A standalone line to the Airport or Express line to the airport makes no sense. The cost benefit analysis would just not be there. Dublin Bus & Aircoach already provide a very good service through Port Tunnel.

The suggested project isn't going to offer a quicker option has a very significant capital cost.

The Airport link only works in the context of Metro where it links DCU, Ballymun, Swords etc. which all have significant commuter numbers. Otherwise it's just a vanity project.

Jack Noble

robd wrote: »

I've actually changed my mind on this. A standalone line to the Airport or Express line to the airport makes no sense. The cost benefit analysis would just not be there. Dublin Bus & Aircoach already provide a very good service through Port Tunnel.

The suggested project isn't going to offer a quicker option has a very significant capital cost.

The Airport link only works in the context of Metro where it links DCU, Ballymun, Swords etc. which all have significant commuter numbers. Otherwise it's just a vanity project.

If the Dart spur to the Airport was built - as suggested by IE - it would not be a standalone line but service all stops between the Airport/Clongriffin and Connolly without DartU and Inchicore or Hazelhatch with DartU.

Sam Russell

Also, a lot of people work at the airport. A link from Clongriffin, with another one from Swords, and continue onto Heuston, and further links using existing lines would make sense.

As regards rolling stock, they have plenty of Dart rolling stock as well. For the current service (15 min interval) they need 8 to 10 trains which rquires 80 coaches. That is how many they originally bought 30 years ago. They have double that number.

The diesel commuters appear to have a place to connect pantagraphs, so maybe changing them to electric might be not to be too big a job. Afterall they retrofitted the original Dart rolling stock.

Certainly, eletrifying the Maynooth line is a no-brainer, whatever else they do.