Maynooth Line Level Crossings

Transportuser09

DWCommuter wrote: »

The fact that I think its strange (and it is) is one of the reasons Im "convinced it won't happen". Postponing the preparation of the Maynooth line for electrification when the absolute relevence and success of the Interconnector depends on it, does not auger well. Keeping the "tunnel aspect" in the news, while cutting spending on the other incremental parts of the overall project is, in my opinion, alarming.

But does the success of the Interconnector have to depend on the electrification of the Maynooth line, given that the routes directly feeding into the Interconnector tunnel will be the Northern line and that to Hazelhatch? True, the published service patterns are Maynooth-Bray and Hazelhatch-Northern Dart line but surely some alternative service pattern could be devised if the Maynooth electrification scheme is dropped. Transportation schemes have been chopped and changed in their plans before, the Luas being an example. Of course, such a service would be far from perfect.

DWCommuter

Transportuser09 wrote: »

But does the success of the Interconnector have to depend on the electrification of the Maynooth line, given that the routes directly feeding into the Interconnector tunnel will be the Northern line and that to Hazelhatch? True, the published service patterns are Maynooth-Bray and Hazelhatch-Northern Dart line but surely some alternative service pattern could be devised if the Maynooth electrification scheme is dropped. Transportation schemes have been chopped and changed in their plans before, the Luas being an example. Of course, such a service would be far from perfect.

You say "far from perfect" and that the published service patterns are Maynooth-Bray etc. Realistically you have answered your own question.

If billions are going to be spent on this DART tunnel (which Im all in favour of, but doubtful that it will happen in the next decade) then it should be the full job and nothing less. The original proposal was Drogheda - Kildare town and Maynooth - Bray. As each year passes it gets more diluted. T21 stated Balbriggan - Hazelhatch. Already we see Drogheda enter the picture again and the latest is that prep work on electrifying the Maynooth section is at a standstill. Add to this the gap between the KRP and the DART tunnel itself (no funding) and its easy to conclude that the whole thing is a mess with a Government determined to be pro interconnector but deviod of realistic understanding and committment to it.

The funnier thing is that last April the Minister for Transport clearly stated that IE were now designing the extension from Pace to Navan. More recently he reiterated that this line would be built. So it isn't wrong to think that the whole rail transport plan is riddled with political interference designed to win votes and deliver feck all.

dowlingm

transportuser09 - not sure we're talking about dewiring south of Connolly yet but without an electrified Maynooth then every Bray electric service has to turn back at Connolly or Pearse with resulting platform and track congestion. The alternative is to operate a mixed Bray-Maynooth (diesel) and Greystones-Howth (electric) but the resulting slot requirement for the Howth in addition to Enterprise and Dundalk will reduce both the number of Maynooth and Pace services into Connolly AND the number of services through the Interconnector.

monument

ilovegermany wrote: »

Does that mean that even if the interconnector is built there will be no work on sorting the stretch of two track just beyond Inchicore and no electrification to Maynooth?

DW - where did you get that info?

Could be wrong, but it seems to have come originally from the Irish Examiner, and note like the major projects, these seem like delays rather than full-blown cuts:

Among the public transport projects being postponed this year are:

* Upgrade and resignalling of the Dublin-Maynooth railway line.

* Preparatory work for electrification of the Maynooth line.

* Preparatory work on an upgrade of Cherry Orchard-Inchicore line.

* Construction of a new railway station at Kilbarry on the Cork-Blarney commuter line.

* Implementation of the Railway Safety Commission’s programme.

* Upgrade works on Luas power lines.

* Planning on the Metro West line. nFunding cutbacks totalling e20m were also announced for traffic management grants in the greater Dublin area, including park and ride facilities.

* A programme to improve accessibility for disabled persons to public transport also had its budget slashed by e5m to e20m, while e3m of spending on an integrated ticketing project was deferred until 2010.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/ididqlsncw/#ixzz0yTwddLLQ

DWCommuter

monument wrote: »

Could be wrong, but it seems to have come originally from the Irish Examiner, and note like the major projects, these seem like delays rather than full-blown cuts:

It actually came from the supporting documentation that was attached to the release from the DOT. Each Government Dept issued one after the supplemenatry budget. The Examiner reported on it and the IRRS journal reported on it in its June issue.

From experience, much of the "devil in the detail" is not featured in DOT press releases, but in the supporting documentation that comes with them.

Getting back to the point itself, its envisaged that the tunnel will be a PPP. However the state still has to find the money for supporting works such as electrifying the Maynooth line and prior to that upgrading the signalling and level crossings. With a further 3 billion in cuts required for the 2011 budget, time is running out. We must also understand that a PPP still requires annual payments to the consortium. In rail terms, we are facing PPP payments on both Metro North and the Interconnector (DART Tunnel) Ive asked it before; can the current economy commit to that? The figure may well be in and around 500 million per annum. Its been nearly 3 years since we hit recession and we are still spiralling downwards, hence why I believe it could be at least 10 years before we actually commit to digging holes in the ground.

I could be wrong, but the economic climate certainly points things in that direction. And all of this is without the traditional Irish Governments reluctance and dithering in relation to massive infrastructure projects.

Chuchoter

How can they remove the level crossings at clonsilla and coolmine? Those are busy roads?

DCConfuser

DWCommuter wrote: »

It actually came from the supporting documentation that was attached to the release from the DOT. Each Government Dept issued one after the supplemenatry budget. The Examiner reported on it and the IRRS journal reported on it in its June issue.

From experience, much of the "devil in the detail" is not featured in DOT press releases, but in the supporting documentation that comes with them.

Getting back to the point itself, its envisaged that the tunnel will be a PPP. However the state still has to find the money for supporting works such as electrifying the Maynooth line and prior to that upgrading the signalling and level crossings. With a further 3 billion in cuts required for the 2011 budget, time is running out. We must also understand that a PPP still requires annual payments to the consortium. In rail terms, we are facing PPP payments on both Metro North and the Interconnector (DART Tunnel) Ive asked it before; can the current economy commit to that? The figure may well be in and around 500 million per annum. Its been nearly 3 years since we hit recession and we are still spiralling downwards, hence why I believe it could be at least 10 years before we actually commit to digging holes in the ground.

I could be wrong, but the economic climate certainly points things in that direction. And all of this is without the traditional Irish Governments reluctance and dithering in relation to massive infrastructure projects.

What an eejit you are DCCommuter.
Where did you get your 500million annual repayments from?
In a dream?
500 million repayments means (at 5%) contract value of 10 BILLION FFS.
Are you that nut Frank MacDonald?
Seeing as the metro north bids have come in at less than 2 billion - at 5% interest the interest repayments on MN would be less than 100million.
That will actually be covered by revenue mostly it not all.
MacDonald started this nonsense about 5 billion for MN, conveniently failing to mention that that is the TOTAL cost over 25yrs at the potential max price at the height of the boom.
People like you stuffing the board with schoolboy howler figures are a 24 carat pure-bred pain in the asre.

I will ban you if you attack the poster, rather than the post, again. Read the forum charter. ~ Mod

L1011

His 500M figure is for both MN *and* the Interconnector; although I doubt it'll be that much for both either myself.

DWCommuter

DCConfuser wrote: »

What an eejit you are DCCommuter.
Where did you get your 500million annual repayments from?
In a dream?
500 million repayments means (at 5%) contract value of 10 BILLION FFS.
Are you that nut Frank MacDonald?
Seeing as the metro north bids have come in at less than 2 billion - at 5% interest the interest repayments on MN would be less than 100million.
That will actually be covered by revenue mostly it not all.
MacDonald started this nonsense about 5 billion for MN, conveniently failing to mention that that is the TOTAL cost over 25yrs at the potential max price at the height of the boom.
People like you stuffing the board with schoolboy howler figures are a 24 carat pure-bred pain in the asre.


I will ban you if you attack the poster, rather than the post, again. Read the forum charter. ~ Mod

As already pointed out to you the figures are for noth MN and the interconnector. Furthermore I said the figures "may well be in and around" €500m per annum. The actual cost of MN is not in the public domain for tender related reasons, so your figure of €2 billion is guess work. Frank McDonald didn't introduce the figure of €5 billion either. Its the last known figure that was available.

In conclusion, you are just a troll attempting to bait me and me alone, so get lost please.

DCConfuser

DWCommuter wrote: »

As already pointed out to you the figures are for noth MN and the interconnector. Furthermore I said the figures "may well be in and around" €500m per annum. The actual cost of MN is not in the public domain for tender related reasons, so your figure of €2 billion is guess work. Frank McDonald didn't introduce the figure of €5 billion either. Its the last known figure that was available.

In conclusion, you are just a troll attempting to bait me and me alone, so get lost please.

You are hopelessly confused.
Frankie's 5 billion for MN is extracted from a DoT document that lists a potential MN contract at 2.75billion - so where did you get your 'last known figure' of 5 bn? - dreaming as usual I assume. That 2.75 billion equates to roughly 5 billion over 25 years. Even the mad Frankie admits that. Mail him and find out.
The potential 2.75 billion was at the height of the boom.
The 2 billion for MN is not guesswork. I happen to know that the bids are below 2 billion.
So the 2 projects will have a contract value of less than 5 billion which extrapolates to interest below 150 million p.a.

DWCommuter

DCConfuser wrote: »

You are hopelessly confused.
Frankie's 5 billion for MN is extracted from a DoT document that lists a potential MN contract at 2.75billion - so where did you get your 'last known figure' of 5 bn? - dreaming as usual I assume. That 2.75 billion equates to roughly 5 billion over 25 years. Even the mad Frankie admits that. Mail him and find out.
The potential 2.75 billion was at the height of the boom.
The 2 billion for MN is not guesswork. I happen to know that the bids are below 2 billion.
So the 2 projects will have a contract value of less than 5 billion which extrapolates to interest below 150 million p.a.

I am not hopelessly confused and at this stage your obvious agenda against me in particular (considering your join date and number of posts) is so obvious, its an interesting deviation from more hum drum tasks. So I'll go along with your little game for a bit longer.

The 5 billion figure for metro north was in the public domain as early as November 2002 when the RPA delivered their OBC (thats Outline Business Case, but Im sure you know that already) to the Government. The figure was 4.8 billion or thereabouts. (I also saw the figure when I had a meeting with O' Reilly consultants who were compiling their report for the transport committee) Even in those more positive economic times, there were gasps of dismay in media and political circles. (and remember that the line was only running as far as Dublin Airport at that stage) The 4.8 billion figure was subsequently broken down by the RPA to reveal that the direct construction costs were 1.72 billion, but added to this were risk and insurance costs of 903 million, cost escalation components of 811 million, VAT of 458 million, PPP interest of 676 million and financial and legal costs of 313 million. This brings it to 4.8 billion approx. The media rounded it off to 5 billion and so the cycle continued. Frankie was just out of touch with his FOI request.I knew the figure was nearly 5 billion 4 years before he reported it.

In June 2003 the RPA put forward a figure of 4.58 billion in the RBC. (Once again Im sure you know this means Revised Business Case) Frankie found the RBC figure in his FOI request, claimed that time (4 years) must have increased the cost and slapped the 5 billion tag on it by adding 400 million. But the original OBC as presented by the RPA was 4.8 billion. (near enough to 5 billion)

Since all this the RPA have been very careful to quote the actual direct construction estimated cost as opposed to the total funding requirement. In more recent times the RPA have disputed the 5 billion tag, but refused to quote an alternative in an attempt to obtain value for money by not revealing what they are expecting to shell out. Your figure of below 2 billion cannot possibly cover the other expenditure associated with the project. So even if the PPP repayments are based on your sub 2 billion figure, who pays the other costs? The total funding requirement figure is the more important one in the chaos that is Irelands economic situation.

Metro norths total cost will not be under 2 billion. And don't forget this very early quote from the RPA;

Allen has expressed concern about comparisons between rail projects made only on the basis of cost per kilometre. He said the RPA stood over its figure of €4.8 billion as the total cost of the metro as a public-private partnership. This included construction, design and property compensation, and took in inflation

DCConfuser

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
When I go to buy a house the estate agent tells me 300,000 Euros. Not the 800,000 Euros I will pay over the 30 year mortgage.

The contract for MN will be signed for below 2 billion and the interest p.a. will be less than 100 million.

What part of that do you find difficult to understand?

5 billion for an 18 Km light Metro line only half of which is underground?
:D:D:D:D

500m interest p.a.? ha ha ha Don't eat such heavy food before you go to bed. You have more realistic dreams.

Try to get out more often DCCommuter.

Goodbye.

Amtmann

^^ Banned.

Cool Mo D

It's important to realise though, that money has a time value, and that €5 billion is a meaningless number, unless we know when it is due.

€5 billion due in 2040 is exactly the same as €1.1 billion tomorrow. That is assuming an average 5% interest rate.

BluntGuy

DCConfuser wrote:

Seeing as the metro north bids have come in at less than 2 billion

While I see the above poster has received a well-deserved ban, I must address this one point that keeps cropping up. I'm getting sick of this one being thrown around because there is no evidence.

If someone would like to produce a source for that figure, then by all means, but as far as I can see it is just a figure that has been repeated over and over and no one has verified where it has come from. Fair enough if it's an educated guess, but it shouldn't be stated like it's fact when it's a mere rumour. As I said however, if someone wants to come along and show me the origins of this claim, I'll be more than happy.

When I go to buy a house the estate agent tells me 300,000 Euros. Not the 800,000 Euros I will pay over the 30 year mortgage.

This is an incredibly silly argument, because while the estate agent might not tell you the full amount you'll be paying, you'd be a very irresponsible person not to work out for yourself or ask the total amount payable. I do not believe the taxpayers can afford to be that naive. We must know the full cost of the project, not the one RPA/government publishes to look good. We're not "getting a Metro" for < 2 billion just because the tender for the barebones infrastructure MAY be less than 2 billion.

DWCommuter

BluntGuy wrote: »

While I see the above poster has received a well-deserved ban, I must address this one point that keeps cropping up. I'm getting sick of this one being thrown around because there is no evidence.

If someone would like to produce a source for that figure, then by all means, but as far as I can see it is just a figure that has been repeated over and over and no one has verified where it has come from. Fair enough if it's an educated guess, but it shouldn't be stated like it's fact when it's a mere rumour. As I said however, if someone wants to come along and show me the origins of this claim, I'll be more than happy.



This is an incredibly silly argument, because while the estate agent might not tell you the full amount you'll be paying, you'd be a very irresponsible person not to work out for yourself or ask the total amount payable. I do not believe the taxpayers can afford to be that naive. We must know the full cost of the project, not the one RPA/government publishes to look good. We're not "getting a Metro" for < 2 billion just because the tender for the barebones infrastructure MAY be less than 2 billion.

I hesitated about coming back to this thread, such was the obvious baiting agenda of a certain poster and based on nothing concrete. As stated above and in other posts by me, there is no actual sub 2 billion cost for metro north and the original figure of approx 5 billion is the last publically available figure. Within that figure there is the direct construction cost, but the overall cost figure is the one that is relevant and it was always close to 5 billion. The PPP aspect figure of the project should be made known, because I fear we will have PPP repayments and direct costs, which brings me back to what the country can afford. Have we left it too late? Are we being spun a line based on just the PPP part of the project. Getting back on topic this also relates to the interconnector and the continued lack of funding for related projects such as the Maynooth line upgrade, while there is an apparent push forward on the PPP aspect of the project.

Based on available evidence, both MN and the DART Tunnel look like they could easily suffer from a lack of state funding to bring them to fruition. Have any of you actually considered that our Government are trying to keep both projects alive based on minimal spending via design and PPPs, while hoping the economy picks up to fund the other parts?

Please Note: If you are going to correct me and provide verifiable evidence that contradicts what Ive said, then please do it in a civil manner and without personal insults, because it just makes my current ban from the C&T forum look more hasty and ill thought out. Thank you.

Cool Mo D

I'm saying that the €5 billion is not, (at least, not necessarily) the important cost, if, as you seem to indicate, financing costs are included in it.

There are two ways you could state the cost: the cost in 2010 euros, or the actual amount that would finally be paid in about 15 years from now.

The cost in 2010 euros should exclude financing costs - because, if the government paid for it upfront, in cash, this year, it would not have to pay off the PPP's financing - the cost to finance it is only due if paying for it is put off until later.

If you are stating the cost in 2025 euros, the financing cost should be included - because the government must pay back the PPP for borrowing the capital to build Metro North. However, the extra cost will be whittled away by inflation, so that €5 billion in 2025 will worth a lot less than it is now.

What I am saying is that it is misleading in the extreme to say that Metro North will cost €5 billion, if that money isn't due until much later, as the value of €5 billion then will be far less than €5 billion now - the amount in 2010 euros will be a lot closer to the plain construction cost, as the interest required to pay the PPP will be countered by inflation.



On the other hand, you could make the point that the Government is borrowing a fortune all the time, and will not pay for Metro North out of tax revenue, so that the cost of borrowing for Metro North should be included when discussing it.

This is a valid point, but then you are also giving an inflated estimate of much it will cost to the taxpayer. For example, paying a nurse might cost €40,000 this year. But much of that will be borrowed money, so the real cost to pay that nurse could be €80,000 by 2020 when the borrowing is paid back. But no-one will say that it costs €80,000 to pay a nurse for a year.

All the costs of infrastructure projects in Ireland have been discussed in terms of their construction cost so far, and have not included the amount that they will contribute to interest on the national debt. Maybe they should have. But if it's done for Metro North and not other projects, it gives a falsely inflated cost of Metro North compared to any other project.

Personally, the fact that this debate on Metro North is being had reflects very poorly on the lack of transparency of the whole PPP setup. If we knew the terms of the agreement, it would be easier to figure out what was going on.

Sponge Bob

Cool Mo D wrote: »

. But if it's done for Metro North and not other projects, it gives a falsely inflated cost of Metro North compared to any other project.

Very true, it would be absolutely safe to assume that every capital project will be done on borrowed money for the next while. Some on long term PPPs and with operation thrown in. Some on a Design Build basis only financed from whatever the 10 year bond rate was at the time of payment.

Personally, the fact that this debate on Metro North is being had reflects very poorly on the lack of transparency of the whole PPP setup. If we knew the terms of the agreement, it would be easier to figure out what was going on.

Commercial sensitivity will prevent them from revealing PPP terms for at least 2 or 3 years thereafter. I think they should be revealed 3 years after signing in all cases.

L1011

Despite the suspension of this plan, the Porterstown (Clonsilla) L/C has now been replaced by a link to a pre-existing bridge (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.37909&lon=-6.40438&zoom=16&layers=M) but it hasn't, yet, been stopped up. Approach roads have signs claiming "no through road" but the LC is present and functioning.

I would hope the equipment can be decommissioned properly and used to automate another LC elsewhere...

Sponge Bob

MYOB wrote: »

Despite the suspension of this plan, the Porterstown (Clonsilla) L/C has now been replaced by a link to a pre-existing bridge (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.37909&lon=-6.40438&zoom=16&layers=M)

Indeed, tendered out before Leo became Minister too.

http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=FEB199686