Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Maynooth Line Level Crossings

  • 20-08-2010 9:52am
    #1
    coolmangg
    Registered Users Posts: 37 ✭


    Ive heard a rumor through the grapevine that Construction tenders have been issued for the removal of the level crossings on the Maynooth Line by Irish Rail.

    Can anybody back this up or upload drawings etc. There is nothing on their website, surprise surprise!

    The level crossings include,
    Ratoath Rd
    Ashtown
    Coolmine
    Clonsilla X 2
    and Westmanstown.

    Ide be very interested to see how the will work.


Comments

  • #2
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    coolmangg wrote: »
    Ive heard a rumor through the grapevine that Construction tenders have been issued for the removal of the level crossings on the Maynooth Line by Irish Rail.

    Can anybody back this up or upload drawings etc. There is nothing on their website, surprise surprise!

    The level crossings include,
    Ratoath Rd
    Ashtown
    Coolmine
    Clonsilla X 2
    and Westmanstown.

    Ide be very interested to see how the will work.

    You wonder if this is tied in with the electification of the line which is suppose to happen along with the interconnector. It would make sense, after all it's a pity they didn't remove the level crossings on the line to Dún Laoghaire


  • #3
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    No tender on the etenders website.

    There are plans to eliminate some level crossings on the Maynooth line as part of the city centre resignalling project, but I know that there were local objections to the proposed bridge at the Ratoath Road (Reillys crossing).


  • #4
    Stonewolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭Stonewolf


    The fact that there are manned level crossings on that line is rediculous. I used to cross one of them reasonably regularly.


  • #5
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    dubhthach wrote: »
    it's a pity they didn't remove the level crossings on the line to Dún Laoghaire
    While a worthy suggestion, that would be a very tricky project to put it mildly, both on a technical level, for the disruption to the DART and the likelihood of m' learned friends being called on by the locals. It would probably cost half the Interconnector by the end of it!


  • #6
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    dowlingm wrote: »
    While a worthy suggestion, that would be a very tricky project to put it mildly, both on a technical level, for the disruption to the DART and the likelihood of m' learned friends being called on by the locals. It would probably cost half the Interconnector by the end of it!

    At the moment yes, but I was referring in past tense when they were actually carrying out the electrification back in early 80's. As for the locals well as a blow-in living in Sandymount I can understand their point. The one thing all those level crossings do is hugely reduce the traffic flow through Sandymount which make it an even better place to live.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    They have announced they are going to auction off 82 carriages from the 1980s stock known as MK3 stock , they must have smashed up the other 50 of them.


  • #8
    D'Peoples Voice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭D'Peoples Voice


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    They have announced they are going to auction off 82 carriages from the 1980s stock known as MK3 stock , they must have smashed up the other 50 of them.

    from that link Sponge Bob,
    either that website is not kept up to date
    or Irish Rail are still waiting on more railcars at a time of cutbacks:eek:

    As of January '07, seven sets now operate the Dublin-Cork route on an enhanced hourly clockface timetable. The existing Mark 3 carriages have replaced the older (and tired looking) Mark 2 carriages that previously operated mid-day Limerick, Galway and Waterford routes. The Mark 3s will be in turn be superseded by the new batch of 183 Class 22000 by 2008. The first batch of these have been delivered in early March '07.


  • #9
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    D'Peoples Voice wrote: »
    from that link Sponge Bob,
    either that website is not kept up to date
    or Irish Rail are still waiting on more railcars at a time of cutbacks:eek:

    There are futher 22000s to come, both the replacements for the ones that rusted on the way from Korea and more after that.

    I can only assume the intent is to release 29000s from their remaining Sligo duties and take 29000 and 2800s off long-distance commuter usage. The WRC is also going to get some.

    No idea whats going to happen to the excess older ones after that, the Dunboyne services are going to push the availabilty of units even further so it could be cover for that.


  • #10
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    The upgrading of level crossings and the electrification of the line has been suspended as of April 7th 2009.
    Budget Cuts On 7 April the Government announced a series of cuts in funding for public transport due to the worsening economic situation. These included:
    · Preparatory work for the electrification, upgrade and re-signalling of the Dublin-Maynooth line.
    · Preparatory work on upgrade of the Cherry Orchard-Inchicore line
    · Construction of a new station at Kilbarry in the Cork-Mallow section
    · Implementation of the railway safety programme
    · Upgrade works on Luas power lines
    · Planning on the Metro West line
    · A reduction by €5m to €20m in the programme to improve accessibility for disabled persons to public transport
    · €3m of spending on an integrated ticketing project was deferred until 2010.
    A reduction of €10m in public transport service payments to CIÉ. The Minister for Transport said this could be compensated for by selling off property.


  • #11
    ilovegermany
    Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭ilovegermany


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    The upgrading of level crossings and the electrification of the line has been suspended as of April 7th 2009.


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    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?

    Its in the June 2009 issue of the IRRS journal and based on the €150million reduction in capital provision for public transport in the supplementary budget. So yes it looks like the DART tunnel is still getting funds for planning and design, but the assocoated works aren't. Its seems strange alright.


  • #13
    ilovegermany
    Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭ilovegermany


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Its in the June 2009 issue of the IRRS journal and based on the €150million reduction in capital provision for public transport in the supplementary budget.


    Thanks DW.

    I didnt realise the cuts were as specific as that.
    How can a "2 Line Dart" function properly when the Maynooth line won't be properly upgraded.

    Only in Ireland


  • #14
    Stonewolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭Stonewolf


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Its in the June 2009 issue of the IRRS journal and based on the €150million reduction in capital provision for public transport in the supplementary budget. So yes it looks like the DART tunnel is still getting funds for planning and design, but the assocoated works aren't. Its seems strange alright.

    That's completely and utterly ludicrous, which in this country means it's probably true.


  • #15
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    The only other reference to it is in the "Renewed programme for Government" dated October 10th 2009.
    The ruling Fianna Fáil and Green parties agreed a ‘Renewed Programme for Government’ on 10 October. It notes:
    On transport: ‘Having successfully focused on the delivery of major roads infrastructure in Transport 21 over the past five years, the emphasis in new projects will shift significantly to public transport. Following the completion of payments for the major motorways programme in 2011, the ratio of expenditure on new Transport 21 projects between public transport and the national roads programme will be 2:1 in favour of public transport.’
    On rail: ‘Work will continue on the subsequent phases of the Western Rail Corridor and Navan projects for earliest possible delivery’.
    On LUAS: ‘... Planning and design will continue on Metro West and the Bray, Lucan and Cross-city LUAS lines with a view to earliest possible delivery’.
    ‘We will fast track and prioritise the DART interconnector (and its associated electrification and rolling stock projects) and Metro North so that they are completed by 2016’.
    On cycling: ‘We will reverse the CIÉ policy of excluding and limiting bicycle carrying capacity on interurban trains and buses and ensure all new train units have a more extensive bicycle carrying capacity’. ‘We will pursue the possibility of using former railway infrastructure as recreational trails for cycling, etc. in partnership with IÉ.’
    Other items noted were: ‘We will introduce an allowance per tonne for rail freight by rail in line with climate change objectives’.
    ‘[We will] conduct a feasibility study on how a future high-speed rail system could link Dublin and Belfast to the emerging UK and European high speed rail network’.

    Furthermore, CIE had a 9% cut to their funding in the 2010 budget on top of the 10% cut in the supplementary budget of April 2009.


  • #16
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Of course it was also mentioned briefly in the recent revised infrastructure budget 2010-2016. But as things stand right now, it appears no money is available to plan the upgrade of the Maynooth line.


  • #17
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Isn't the Maynooth line up to Clonsilla included in the city centre resignalling work that's currently underway?


  • #18
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    It would appear not - it seems only to be covering the DART line:

    http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/city_centre_resignalling.asp


  • #19
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    This is what I see post interconnector the things are going:
    Malahide-Hazelhatch: DART
    Maynooth-Bray: diesel
    Connolly-Greystones: low frequency service run by any DART stock not cleared for the tunnel to eke out the investment in overhead and transformers.


  • #20
    coolmangg
    Registered Users Posts: 37 ✭coolmangg


    That is pretty disappointing. How will places like Clonsilla, Coolmine work now. With the Dunboyne trains on the line too the gates will be closed for seriously long times.
    And by the looks of things it will be the case for many years to come.
    Also note that the Dunboyne Trains wont stop in Drumcondra during weekdays. Why couldn't IR align the Docklands station so that it could accept trains from either line running below Conolly Station.
    So frustrating.


  • #21
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    dowlingm wrote: »
    This is what I see post interconnector the things are going:
    Malahide-Hazelhatch: DART
    Maynooth-Bray: diesel
    Connolly-Greystones: low frequency service run by any DART stock not cleared for the tunnel to eke out the investment in overhead and transformers.

    I think that you are being seriously pessimistic with that outlook.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    thomasj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭thomasj


    I think it would be a serious blunder on ies side if they were to reduce capacity or even de-electrify Connolly bray in favour of hazelhatch


  • #23
    thomasj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭thomasj


    From transport 21
    . Projected Completion Date 2015 (subject to the relevant statutory process and the procurement and contract award processes, the start and completion dates of projects which have not yet commenced, including the Electrification of and provision of Rolling Stock on the Dublin Suburban Network, will also be determined by the funding allocation available during the current difficult economic climate).
    Current Status of Project The issue is being examined in the context of developing plans for the DART Underground, although the possibility of carrying out some preparatory work will be explored when the Kildare Route Project is being developed. Approval has been granted for intial scoping of the works involved on the Maynooth line and this is currently underway.


  • #24
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    KC61 wrote: »
    I think that you are being seriously pessimistic with that outlook.
    That may well be, but better to expect the worst. Unless Ireland does an Iceland and revolts against the bailout of Anglo, deferring the electrification of Maynooth and the acquisition of the necessary EMUs will be seen as an easy cut out of the many required over the next 10-15 years, especially if Interconnector goes overbudget.


  • #25
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    dowlingm wrote: »
    This is what I see post interconnector the things are going:
    Malahide-Hazelhatch: DART
    Maynooth-Bray: diesel
    Connolly-Greystones: low frequency service run by any DART stock not cleared for the tunnel to eke out the investment in overhead and transformers.

    Definitely will not happen.

    If the interconnector is built, worst case scenario is Kildare commuter operate as now, DART will run Malahide/Howth to Inchicore, and Bray-Greystones to Connolly. Maynooth trains as now.

    I would say that electrification of Connolly Maynooth is more likely than Heuston Hazelhatch, if both do not happen.


  • #26
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    Does anyone know who I can complain to about level crossing or who even has authority over them? The level crossing on the main Killarney - Cork road N22 has subsided and driving over it at speed (>110km) is now a practical death trap waiting to happen, I came down the straight last week (only doing about 105km) and went over it and the car was almost launched into the air and I could have easily lost control.

    A few trips over it and you will soon be needing a new front suspension and springs. There was a bit in the Kerryman recently about it but nothing has been done about it nor does it look like they are even bothered.


  • #27
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The level crossing on the main Killarney - Cork road N22 has subsided and driving over it at speed (>110km) is now a practical death trap waiting to happen
    What's the speed limit at the point? Surely it's <=100km/h, although it's several years since I was down that stretch? That said, it sounds pretty bad.


  • #28
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    thomasj wrote: »
    I think it would be a serious blunder on ies side if they were to reduce capacity or even de-electrify Connolly bray in favour of hazelhatch
    What are you on about? It would actually be more expensive to do that than to leave it as-is.
    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Its in the June 2009 issue of the IRRS journal and based on the €150million reduction in capital provision for public transport in the supplementary budget. So yes it looks like the DART tunnel is still getting funds for planning and design, but the assocoated works aren't. Its seems strange alright.
    I don't know why you think it's strange, you seem to be convinced it won't happen for some time now.

    Budget cut in 2009/2010 != project curtailed. So long as it's ready for 2016 we're still set.


  • #29
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Does anyone know who I can complain to about level crossing or who even has authority over them? The level crossing on the main Killarney - Cork road N22 has subsided and driving over it at speed (>110km) is now a practical death trap waiting to happen, I came down the straight last week (only doing about 105km) and went over it and the car was almost launched into the air and I could have easily lost control.

    A few trips over it and you will soon be needing a new front suspension and springs. There was a bit in the Kerryman recently about it but nothing has been done about it nor does it look like they are even bothered.

    http://www.irishrail.ie/about_us/our_infrastructure.asp#levelcrossing

    Contact the Divisional Engineers office at Limerick Junction Tel: 062 51083


  • #30
    Transportuser09
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Transportuser09


    To be honest I can't envisage a situation where any of the existing electrified network is de-wired. If something was to be cut, the Maynooth line scheme seems the most practial to leave diesel operated. As long as the interconnector goes ahead it would be madness not to continue as planned to Hazelhatch, whereas the Maynooth scheme is less symbiotic to the interconnector plan. If the Dart is not going to Hazelhatch then there would be little point running the Interconnector to Inchicore; if they weren't going to run a through Dart service to Hazelhatch then they would terminate the route at Heuston and avoid tunneling to Inchicore at all.

    There's no way the existing Dart line will have it's wires taken down, as spacetweek says it would probably be more expensive to do this anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    spacetweek wrote: »
    What are you on about? It would actually be more expensive to do that than to leave it as-is.

    I don't know why you think it's strange, you seem to be convinced it won't happen for some time now.

    Budget cut in 2009/2010 != project curtailed. So long as it's ready for 2016 we're still set.

    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.


  • #32
    Transportuser09
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • #36
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Chuchoter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


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


  • #38
    DCConfuser
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭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


  • #39
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


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


  • #40
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    DCConfuser
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭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


  • #43
    DCConfuser
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭DCConfuser


    :D: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: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.


  • #44
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    ^^ Banned.


  • #45
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #51
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
Advertisement