Maximizing the current Rail Infrastructure

Sam Russell

The spur from Clongriffin to the airport is loose change (€200 million) compared to the €4 billion for DU, and quick (12 month to build) compared to a decade and counting for DU. The electrification of Connolly to Maynooth is also cheap and quick in comparison.

MN and DU will take a decade before a single passenger buys a ticket. Look how long Luas has taken and LCC still has not had a single paying passenger.

We need to get our shovels ready, as little is being done about any of these projects - easy or not.

defrule

My fear would be anything that gets built would end up having some inefficient quirk like queueing up to for one guy to check you paper ticket, rather than using an array of turnstiles and leap card.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

The spur from Clongriffin to the airport is loose change (€200 million) compared to the €4 billion for DU, and quick (12 month to build) compared to a decade and counting for DU. The electrification of Connolly to Maynooth is also cheap and quick in comparison. .

And completely pointless without first building the 4 billion DU!

Connolly to Maynooth electrification should of course happen.

Sam Russell wrote: »

MN and DU will take a decade before a single passenger buys a ticket. Look how long Luas has taken and LCC still has not had a single paying passenger.

We need to get our shovels ready, as little is being done about any of these projects - easy or not.

In fairness though, worth remembering that Luas has more then doubled the number of people carried by rail in Ireland over the last 15 years. A fantastic achievement. And LCC will add another 8 to 10 million trips per year starting in just two months.

But yes a lot more to do.

bk

defrule wrote: »

My fear would be anything that gets built would end up having some inefficient quirk like queueing up to for one guy to check you paper ticket, rather than using an array of turnstiles and leap card.

I don't see why that would be.

It will either be DART style turnstyles or more likely Luas style off train tag-on/tag-off.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

To be honest, that looks like a pretty awesome system!

You can see in that video, even the above ground sections it has a great deal of segregation, with awesome center street running and pretty high speeds!

It sort of shows that when you get into the details of this stuff, the whole "light rail" versus "heavy rail" thing starts to blur together and largely becomes irrelevant to just using what is needed to get the job done.

S-Bahn is commuter rail like the DART, but in Berlin it is almost indistinguishable from U-Bahn as it has it's own dedicated tracks, separate from the heavy rail network. Many Stadtbahn's are also almost indistinguishable from U-Bahn, the reason this term is now used, because some cities Stadtbahn's don't go underground, so the U in U-Bahn wouldn't fit.

BTW to your comment to Dusseldorf being a small, dense city. It's city and urban population are almost exactly the same as Dublin! Interestingly though, Dublins density is almost twice as high as Dusseldorf!! So you would think that a system like this would also be well suited to Dublin.

BBTW Strange about the trams? They have doors to both left and right. The left doors are raised high for Metro style platforms, the right doors are lower for tram like platforms and yup pretty cool. But must involve steps, so bad for accessibility.

But bringing all this back to your first point. I don't see how this would bring the specification of MN into question.

Are you suggesting that MN should be built to Irish gauge, 1500V, with the track coming to an end at Stephens Green and then going nowhere!

That doesn't seem sensible to me at all!

The sensible thing to me is to build MN to standard gauge and to continue it along the green line south of Ranelagh. Close to 4 crossings, easy to do and fully segregate the line as far as Sandyford, with high speed running and high frequency as far as Sandyford, the most congested part of the tracks.

For the Bridesglen extension, also upgrade it to partial Metro. Same trains as the rest of the Metro, but slower running speed and frequency. Basically have only every 2nd or 3rd Metro train go to Bridesglen, the rest stopping at Sandyford.

Folks on the Bridesglen extension would still benefit from longer, bigger trains and the higher speed running from Sandyford to the Airport/Swords.

Eventually as the numbers living along the Bridesglen section increase, you could also eventually close the 12 junctions and upgrade it to full high frequency Metro too.

To be honest, this all sounds like a very reasonable plan, with good future upgrade-ability built in as demand increases. And don't forget about the eventual extension to Bray too.

I honestly can't see any benefit in having the MN tunnel being heavy rail and terminating at Stephens Green. It just adds lots of extra cost and poorer integration.

To me that looks very like the Manchester Metrolink with an underground section.

And no that system does not look "pretty awesome". A metro should not have low platforms, on street running, manual doors or train/tram seats but rather seats facing ecah like most metro systems. Looking at the trams on the Dusseldorf Stradtbahn they are not the 90m trains promised.

It can still be built to heavy metro standards and be standard gauge meaning no IE trains can run on it. Like you said build it should be built to the same standard of the Barcelona metro which is rapid transport and not light rail.

If you were to turn the green line into a metro what would you do with the Luas CC track and all on street track in the CC that would be wasteful.

bk

Stephen15 wrote: »

It can still be built to heavy metro standards and be standard gauge meaning no IE trains can run on it. Like you said build it should be built to the same standard of the Barcelona metro which is rapid transport and not light rail.

But that is exactly what was originally proposed for the original Metro North! Built to the same "heavy metro standard" as Barcelona.

What was originally proposed for Metro North:
- 90m long trains
- Wider then Luas trams
- standard gauge
- 750v DC overhead

Pretty much exactly the same as Barcelona has (86m, standard gauge, 750v DC), probably even the same trains built by the same company Alstom.

I mean it was literally exactly the same!

Obviously the rumour of it being watered down to 60m trains is worrying, but we need to wait and see if that is now still on the cards. I believe the Dublin Metro being worked on is different again, with Metro South being included I suspect we maybe back to needing the 90m trains again.

Stephen15 wrote: »

If you were to turn the green line into a metro what would you do with the Luas CC track and all on street track in the CC that would be wasteful.

That line would continue to exist from Broombridge to Ranelagh and would likely be eventually extended to Finglas.

donvito99

Stephen15 wrote: »

To me that looks very like the Manchester Metrolink with an underground section.

Vehicles would be three times as long so no, not really.

And no that system does not look "pretty awesome". A metro should not have low platforms, on street running, manual doors or train/tram seats but rather seats facing ecah like most metro systems.

There's nothing precluding vehicles with higher platforms (modifications easily done to existing infrastructure). On street running? Hardly. There's actually no shared lanes south of Sandyford, there are road crossings. These problems can be inexpensively remediated.

And the seats?:pac: We'll cross that bridge...

Looking at the trams on the Dusseldorf Stradtbahn they are not the 90m trains promised.

You brought up that system???

It can still be built to heavy metro standards and be standard gauge meaning no IE trains can run on it. Like you said build it should be built to the same standard of the Barcelona metro which is rapid transport and not light rail.

You're right, it can, so what really is your point here? We can keep saying 'til the cows come home that upgrading to Sandyford is a doddle, and post-Sandyford would require more work and more €€€, but the cost would be insignificant.

If you were to turn the green line into a metro what would you do with the Luas CC track and all on street track in the CC that would be wasteful.

They are complementary, and there is plenty of scope to expand towards finglas in future.

Again, what exists today should not get in the way of good solutions.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

Are you suggesting that MN should be built to Irish gauge, 1500V, with the track coming to an end at Stephens Green and then going nowhere!

That doesn't seem sensible to me at all!

I honestly can't see any benefit in having the MN tunnel being heavy rail and terminating at Stephens Green. It just adds lots of extra cost and poorer integration.

it doesn't have to stop at Stephens Green. yes it would cost more but the capacity it could bring could possibly last for a generation if done properly. + with modern signalling getting better, and acceleration and deceleration on units getting better, train spacing and frequency could be as good as metro by the time it would be built. and again you have the integration with the existing dart system, which over all can give greater journey opportunities. luas could then be used to service areas that may not be able to support heavy rail but which need more then busses.

bk

Stephen15, I think you and I are actually in violent agreement. We both want Barcelona spec (minus third rail) for Dublin Metro. And that was exactly what the spec for the original Metro North was.

But when folks like EOTR above talk about "heavy rail" they mean something very different. Basically Irish Rail, Irish Guage, 1500V DC DART. Which is quiet different, but doesn't actually mean it can carry more people.

And it would make absolutely zero sense. It would mean that the line would have to end around Stephens Green and it would preclude upgrading the Green Line to the same Barcelona Metro spec. All of that for a much more expensive cost, while not really being able to carry any extra passengers!

It just doesn't make sense and has little or no benefit.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

That line would continue to exist from Broombridge to Ranelagh and would likely be eventually extended to Finglas.

Fair enough but I fail to see how it would be possible to run metro trains which would have higher platforms etc. alongside Luas low platform trams.

donvito99

Stephen15 wrote: »

Fair enough but I fail to see how it would be possible to run metro trains which would have higher platforms etc. alongside Luas low platform trams.

BXD would terminate at Charlemont/Harcourt/SSG, there would be no conflict.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

Stephen15, I think you and I are actually in violent agreement. We both want Barcelona spec (minus third rail) for Dublin Metro. And that was exactly what the spec for the original Metro North was.

But when folks like EOTR above talk about "heavy rail" they mean something very different. Basically Irish Rail, Irish Guage, 1500V DC DART. Which is quiet different, but doesn't actually mean it can carry more people.

And it would make absolutely zero sense. It would mean that the line would have to end around Stephens Green and it would preclude upgrading the Green Line to the same Barcelona Metro spec. All of that for a much more expensive cost, while not really being able to carry any extra passengers!

It just doesn't make sense and has little or no benefit.

there is nothing to say it has to terminate at Stephens Green if built to heavy rail standards.
the green line could still be upgraded with longer trams. it wouldn't be metro but longer trams would bring benefit to the whole of the green line, whereas metro would only bring it to some of it by the sounds of what's being said/suggested.

bk

Stephen15 wrote: »

Fair enough but I fail to see how it would be possible to run metro trains which would have higher platforms etc. alongside Luas low platform trams.

Luas BXD will end at Ranelagh area, where the Metro emerges from the tunnel. The stations beyond that can be increased in height to Metro spec. The line south of Ranelagh will no longer take Luas Trams. No big deal really, relatively straight forward.

bk

end of the road wrote: »

there is nothing to say it has to terminate at Stephens Green if built to heavy rail standards.
the green line could still be upgraded with longer trams. it wouldn't be metro but longer trams would bring benefit to the whole of the green line, whereas metro would only bring it to some of it by the sounds of what's being said/suggested.

No it couldn't be upgraded to longer Luas trams, not beyond the new 54m trams coming. It is limited by the street space in the city center.

That is the whole point of this exercise. By tieing the Green Line into the Metro and cutting off Luas BXD at Ranelagh, allows you to operate much longer, wider, much faster and much higher frequency Metro standard trains as far as Sandyford and Broombridge (but at slower speeds/frequency).

What you are suggesting is spending billions more, for little extra benefit.

The section from Swords to SSG as heavy rail (as in Irish guage, etc.) would cost about twice the cost of Metro North and not really carry any more people. And then you are suggesting heading south of SSG, but in a different direction, I assume towards Rathmines. So again billions more. And all of these billions cut off the easy upgrade to the Luas Green line!

Really madness, a very silly idea, not even a runner.

donvito99

end of the road wrote: »

there is nothing to say it has to terminate at Stephens Green if built to heavy rail standards.

If you were going somewhere else, but you'd find it difficult to run a Dart down the green line.

the green line could still be upgraded with longer trams. it wouldn't be metro but longer trams would bring benefit to the whole of the green line, whereas metro would only bring it to some of it by the sounds of what's being said/suggested.

This is getting a little repetitive.

After Sandyford, I've counted 13 road crossings. One is the entrance to the Luas depot, 3 are minor (private access) and the rest are essentially access to estates.

There is no shared running (it's not "on street" as it were).

I really don't understand what you're actually saying here. How does Metro only benefit "some of it"? supposing you're right, you could engineer it so that Metro runs to Sandyford, the existing rolling stock runs to Bride's Glen. At SSG, in theory, you could turn back either Metro (to return North) and turn back trams to return South to Brides Glen.

But TBH there is nothing at all major standing in the way of quickly and easily upgrading the entirity of the green line with no service discrimination.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

No it couldn't be upgraded to longer Luas trams, not beyond the new 54m trams coming. It is limited by the street space in the city center.

That is the whole point of this exercise. By tieing the Green Line into the Metro and cutting off Luas BXD at Ranelagh, allows you to operate much longer, wider, much faster and much higher frequency Metro standard trains as far as Sandyford and Broombridge (but at slower speeds/frequency).

What you are suggesting is spending billions more, for little extra benefit.

The section from Swords to SSG as heavy rail (as in Irish guage, etc.) would cost about twice the cost of Metro North and not really carry any more people. And then you are suggesting heading south of SSG, but in a different direction, I assume towards Rathmines. So again billions more. And all of these billions cut off the easy upgrade to the Luas Green line!

Really madness, a very silly idea, not even a runner.

how wouldn't it cary more people. modern signalling is decreasing the spaces between trains as it improves and you could have 8 to 12 coaches in the core of the new part if built as heavy rail.
extending past ssg to new areas can bring a lot of benefits to those areas and bring greater journey opportunities to people. if it is at the expence of upgrading a small bit of the green line to metro then it is what it is

bk

end of the road wrote: »

how wouldn't it cary more people. modern signalling is decreasing the spaces between trains as it improves and you could have 8 to 12 coaches in the core of the new part if built as heavy rail.
extending past ssg to new areas can bring a lot of benefits to those areas and bring greater journey opportunities to people. if it is at the expence of upgrading a small bit of the green line to metro then it is what it is

Well they are currently struggling to get even 10 minute DARTs off the ground!

Secondly, their is no reason why trains as long as DART's couldn't be run on standard gauge if you want or need that. It would have the same capacity then (per train), with the benefit of being able to also easily upgrade the Green line.

I will remind you that trains all over Europe, including HSR, operates on standard gauge. Irish rail are the odd man out with Irish gauge here.

Their really is no benefit of running on Irish gauge, that you couldn't also achieve on standard gauge, 750v DC, like Barcelona, as long as you are willing to build longer stations. Same capacity then, but compatible with the Green Line.

rebel456

end of the road wrote: »

how wouldn't it cary more people. modern signalling is decreasing the spaces between trains as it improves and you could have 8 to 12 coaches in the core of the new part if built as heavy rail.
extending past ssg to new areas can bring a lot of benefits to those areas and bring greater journey opportunities to people. if it is at the expence of upgrading a small bit of the green line to metro then it is what it is

Am I reading correctly that you want MN to be Irish Broad Gauge and to dig up the Green Line south of SSG to relay as Irish Broad Gauge?

end of the road

bk wrote: »

Well they are currently struggling to get even 10 minute DARTs off the ground!

Secondly, their is no reason why trains as long as DART's couldn't be run on standard gauge if you want or need that. It would have the same capacity then (per train), with the benefit of being able to also easily upgrade the Green line.

I will remind you that trains all over Europe, including HSR, operates on standard gauge. Irish rail are the odd man out with Irish gauge here.

Their really is no benefit of running on Irish gauge, that you couldn't also achieve on standard gauge, 750v DC, like Barcelona, as long as you are willing to build longer stations. Same capacity then, but compatible with the Green Line.

there is the better integration aspect, which cannot be ignored in my opinion. if you are going to build it as heavy rail, then building it to irish gauge is the best option as it can allow greater routes and journey opportunities using the rolling stock. if you are going to build it as something lighter, then it doesn't make a difference.
compatibility with a small part of the green line isn't worth the restrictions of another form of rail in my view, unless we are going to build a decent network with that type of rail, with the eventual plans to bring the rest of the luas network into it outside the city area. that is rather unlikely i should think.

rebel456 wrote: »

Am I reading correctly that you want MN to be Irish Broad Gauge and to dig up the Green Line south of SSG to relay as Irish Broad Gauge?

no the green line can stay as is .

rebel456

end of the road wrote: »

there is the better integration aspect, which cannot be ignored in my opinion. if you are going to build it as heavy rail, then building it to irish gauge is the best option as it can allow greater routes and journey opportunities using the rolling stock. if you are going to build it as something lighter, then it doesn't make a difference.
compatibility with a small part of the green line isn't worth the restrictions of another form of rail in my view, unless we are going to build a decent network with that type of rail, with the eventual plans to bring the rest of the luas network into it outside the city area. that is rather unlikely i should think.

no the green line can stay as is .

Why would you even want to do that??

The goal is to move people... not trains! Standard gauge is used throughout the world on metro systems, moving millions of people. You are only adding cost via wider tracks & tunnels to make the system less able to integrate with the Green Line. Along with the fact Ireland would to order specialist rolling stock as very little, if any, Metro systems use Irish Broad Gauge.

The Green line was built to be converted with relative ease to Metro standard allowing MN to eventually run south of SSG. The rest of the Green Line was evisaged to divert down some new alignment - Harolds Cross or Rathmines, I cannot remember exactly. The point being is that eventually MN & Green Line south of SSG integrate seamlessly.

Changing all of that just so you can DART trains is pure and utter maddness!, only a dierhard DART trainspotter could envisage such a scenario.

end of the road

rebel456 wrote: »

Why would you even want to do that??

The goal is to move people... not trains! Standard gauge is used throughout the world on metro systems, moving millions of people. You are only adding cost via wider tracks & tunnels to make the system less able to integrate with the Green Line. Along with the fact Ireland would to order specialist rolling stock as very little, if any, Metro systems use Irish Broad Gauge.

The Green line was built to be converted with relative ease to Metro standard allowing MN to eventually run south of SSG. The rest of the Green Line was evisaged to divert down some new alignment - Harolds Cross or Rathmines, I cannot remember exactly. The point being is that eventually MN & Green Line south of SSG integrate seamlessly.

Changing all of that just so you can DART trains is pure and utter maddness!, only a dierhard DART trainspotter could envisage such a scenario.

adding cost to integrate it with ultimately a bigger network which can bring greater capacity over all. metro would only be integrating with a small part of the green line, not the lot of it. ireland orders specialist stock anyway that's not an issue, it hardly falls out of the sky or magically appears. changing the specks to bring greater capacity and flexibility is far from madness. your nonsense about mythical die-hard dart train spotters is irrelevant.

rebel456

end of the road wrote: »

adding cost to integrate it with ultimately a bigger network which can bring greater capacity over all. metro would only be integrating with a small part of the green line, not the lot of it. ireland orders specialist stock anyway that's not an issue, it hardly falls out of the sky or magically appears. changing the specks to bring greater capacity and flexibility is far from madness. your nonsense about mythical die-hard dart train spotters is irrelevant.

Given the expected sub 5 minute frequency on the Metro North, why do we need to build it so heavy rail trains can run down it? Amtrak trains don't run down the Lexington Avenue Subway Line. Even the electrified Long Island Railroad commuter trains use their own infrastructure.

DART trains are electric trains built to suit our system, they can run along their own tracks just fine - and eventually to Maynooth too. There is no requirement for them to run down to SSG, it adds totally unnecessary cost. Transport systems are about moving people - not vehicles. It's about making connections possible via a network, folks can change trains to get to their destination. As with NY, you can't get the one subway train to every destination, you change at at a connecting station. In Dublin terms that would be changing from MN to DU or LUAS at SSG.

end of the road

rebel456 wrote: »

Given the expected sub 5 minute frequency on the Metro North, why do we need to build it so heavy rail trains can run down it? Amtrak trains don't run down the Lexington Avenue Subway Line. Even the electrified Long Island Railroad commuter trains use their own infrastructure.

DART trains are electric trains built to suit our system, they can run along their own tracks just fine - and eventually to Maynooth too. There is no requirement for them to run down to SSG, it adds totally unnecessary cost. Transport systems are about moving people - not vehicles. It's about making connections possible via a network, folks can change trains to get to their destination. As with NY, you can't get the one subway train to every destination, you change at at a connecting station. In Dublin terms that would be changing from MN to DU or LUAS at SSG.

it doesn't add unnecessary cost at all. new york isn't relevant to a small city like dublin. the US as a whole isn't relevant to ireland either.

rebel456

end of the road wrote: »

it doesn't add unnecessary cost at all. new york isn't relevant to a small city like dublin. the US as a whole isn't relevant to ireland either.

It isn't relevant to you as it rubbishes your argument.

Run DART's on the DART lines (heavy rail, shared with inter-city services), and run Metro trains on metro lines suitable for high frequency services... oh and it costs less than trying to run both on the same track. Not exactly rocket science.

end of the road

rebel456 wrote: »

It isn't relevant to you as it rubbishes your argument.

Run DART's on the DART lines (heavy rail, shared with inter-city services), and run Metro trains on metro lines suitable for high frequency services... oh and it costs less than trying to run both on the same track. Not exactly rocket science.

no, it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant, and it doesn't rubbish my argument. building mn as part of the dart is the best way to go in my view, and i'm satisfied with that viewpoint.

bk

end of the road wrote: »

no, it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant, and it doesn't rubbish my argument. building mn as part of the dart is the best way to go in my view, and i'm satisfied with that viewpoint.

EOTR you have given absolutely no logical reason why building it as DART would make sense. It simply makes no sense at all.

uxiant

Are projects like MN and DU feasible at the moment? How much did we spend on infrastructure during the period 1996-2006? Yes the economy is doing well but we're also over 200bn in debt right now.

bk

uxiant wrote: »

Are projects like MN and DU feasible at the moment? How much did we spend on infrastructure during the period 1996-2006? Yes the economy is doing well but we're also over 200bn in debt right now.

Good question.

We spent more then 12 Billion in the 15 years before the recession on roads and rail.

So with the economy improving, we should be able to afford these projects. Probably not both MN and DU simultaneously, but probably one after the other.

M20 + MN + DU would add up to about 7 billion or so. So expensive, but actually a lot cheaper then what we spent prior to the recession.

Sam Russell

uxiant wrote: »

Are projects like MN and DU feasible at the moment? How much did we spend on infrastructure during the period 1996-2006? Yes the economy is doing well but we're also over 200bn in debt right now.

With political will, they both are projects that a PPP would be possible. Extending electrification to Maynooth is certainly possible. MN is cheaper the DU, so may get the nod before DU, but all these projects are important.

GerardKeating

bk wrote: »

EOTR you have given absolutely no logical reason why building it as DART would make sense. It simply makes no sense at all.

If Metro North was built as Heavy/DART rail, they could quad-track the line to the airport continue out to the link with the northern Line and then divert the Belfast train to run via it into a new central Station, and the Cork/Galway etc could come via DU and most of the mainline destinations in one central station.