Is it worth "downgrading" a commuter line?

Markcheese · 19-06-2019 4:01pm #1

Firstly this isn't anti rail, ...
I'm just wondering if its ever worth changing a heavy rail commuter line to light rail / tram /whatever, if it increases the usefulness and passenger numbers...
I was thinking of the Cork commuter services, (which have a plan for new stops on the midleton line, and possibly out towards blarney/Mallow), as well as a stop (or stops) at the tivoli docks (which is scheduled for redevelopment in 5 or 6 years,)
And a tram/Brt service from Blackrock/ mahon through the South docks to kent Station through city centre, out to ballincolig via ucc,cit, and CUH,

Anywho, if the midleton line and its new stations were changed to a tram (either electric or hybrid) this could also continue out to ballincolig, giving all East cork direct access to the centre, colleges and CUH, as well as new tivoli developments a more useful rail link.

L1011 · 19-06-2019 4:05pm

Its been done - frequently - in the UK

Manchester Metrolink replaced two extant heavy rail lines; Tyne and Wear Metro replaced lines, Croydon Tramlink replaced one active line as well as reused closed alignments.

These were all in service passenger lines prior to closing for conversion.

Markcheese · 19-06-2019 6:16pm

Is it possible to run the 2 at the same time.. So Mallow to Cobh stay as a commuter, midleton to b'colig as a tram, so they'd be sharing glountaine to kent..

L1011 · 19-06-2019 10:14pm

With tram-trains and the same gauge yes - however it'd mean incompatible gauge to Luas. But there'd be different platform heights etc as well as never connecting tram systems in two cities so far apart; so it's not that relevant.

The biggest issue is that nobody makes 1600mm gauge trams, so they'd be dearer as not off the shelf

end of the road · 20-06-2019 2:37pm

it's worth mentioning that the lines replaced by both metro and tram schemes in the uk were very lightly used and infrequently serviced lines and were probably on the verge of closure in some cases, at least the earlier examples. croydon tramlink for example replaced a line operated by an infrequent 2 car service which i think only operated at peak times.
the cork commuter is a busy enough network and will grow hugely in the coming years, so i cannot see it being turned into a tram, with the disruption that convertion would highly likely bring, which i can't see being worth it just to connect it with other possible tram schemes, which could simply interchange with the existing heavy rail network where possible. certainly there are places in cork which would be viable for tram services, and they should be built.

Markcheese · 20-06-2019 5:52pm

I suppose, but they're already planning a lot of disturbance on the midleton line, with new stations, twin tracking, possible electrification..
(I know its all pie in the sky,)
So though extra tram stops would be considerably cheaper than train stations, speeds are pretty similar ( high speed line it ain't,) and most importantly it'd make new development at tivoli much more public transport friendly... (the docks at tivoli stretch to about 3 km, assuming they only get 1 train station, that's up to a 1.5 km walk, to get a train for 5 mins, to get off and transfer for another 5min trip into city centre..

end of the road · 20-06-2019 8:09pm

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose, but they're already planning a lot of disturbance on the midleton line, with new stations, twin tracking, possible electrification..
(I know its all pie in the sky,)
So though extra tram stops would be considerably cheaper than train stations, speeds are pretty similar ( high speed line it ain't,) and most importantly it'd make new development at tivoli much more public transport friendly... (the docks at tivoli stretch to about 3 km, assuming they only get 1 train station, that's up to a 1.5 km walk, to get a train for 5 mins, to get off and transfer for another 5min trip into city centre..

it would depend on how any hypothetical tram routes would be built and operated.
the tram route they may be getting from their

tram stop may not be going to the exact place they are going, so they may end up changing 5 minutes down the line anyway to another route that does have a stop near where they do want to go.

Stephen15 · 21-06-2019 1:12pm

Could use high floor trams similar to Manchester Metrolink although this may result in less accessibility for wheelchair users.

IE 222 · 21-06-2019 7:53pm

Don't forget the cost of re-gauging the line, new fleet and re-signalling costs. That's before you change station infrastructure ect.

I think heavy rail would better suit the line. I can't see demand developing that would require anything more than an 8 car DMU/EMU every 10 mins. A tram potentially running to Mallow would be very slow. Youghal may come back into the spotlight in years to come and again would probably be a bit of stretch for a tram.

Personally I think upgrading the Green line to DART would be a great idea instead of current shambles and future plans been produced.

donvito99 · 21-06-2019 8:10pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Don't forget the cost of re-gauging the line, new fleet and re-signalling costs. That's before you change station infrastructure ect.

I think heavy rail would better suit the line. I can't see demand developing that would require anything more than an 8 car DMU/EMU every 10 mins. A tram potentially running to Mallow would be very slow. Youghal may come back into the spotlight in years to come and again would probably be a bit of stretch for a tram.

Personally I think upgrading the Green line to DART would be a great idea instead of current shambles and future plans been produced.

I think you've argued against that idea in your first paragraph.

IE 222 · 21-06-2019 8:28pm

donvito99 wrote: »

I think you've argued against that idea in your first paragraph.

Green line requires larger fleet or complete upgrade regardless and caters to a much greater number of people to make it cost effective. Green line Dart would be upgrading instead of downgrading and link into a system already in existence.

donvito99 · 21-06-2019 8:50pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Green line requires larger fleet or complete upgrade regardless and caters to a much greater number of people to make it cost effective. Green line Dart would be upgrading instead of downgrading and link into a system already in existence.

It is proposed to close the Green Line for approx. 3 to 8 months to tie it into the Metro. The Southside has lost it's mind over this proposal. You propose:

- Dig up and regauge entire line
- Dig up and rebuild all stations
- Rebuild undersized depot

Yeah, that has a chance...

IE 222 · 22-06-2019 9:30am

donvito99 wrote: »

It is proposed to close the Green Line for approx. 3 to 8 months to tie it into the Metro. The Southside has lost it's mind over this proposal. You propose:

- Dig up and regauge entire line
- Dig up and rebuild all stations
- Rebuild undersized depot

Yeah, that has a chance...

Nah, it has no chance of happening but it would likely offer a better solution to what's currently been planned. They'll be pumping 100s of millions into the line either way so it wouldn't be that drastic in the end. Line should of been reopened with Dart to Shankil from the beginning. The line closure time was "redued" to get the plan off the road I'm sure once they get the white smoke the original closure plans will be reintroduced.

Stephen15 · 22-06-2019 12:14pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Nah, it has no chance of happening but it would likely offer a better solution to what's currently been planned. They'll be pumping 100s of millions into the line either way so it wouldn't be that drastic in the end. Line should of been reopened with Dart to Shankil from the beginning. The line closure time was "redued" to get the plan off the road I'm sure once they get the white smoke the original closure plans will be reintroduced.

That sounds very similar to what was being proposed with the Metro. The section between Sandyford and Ballyogan Wood isn't suitable for heavy rail or even Metro due the high amount of interactions with roads which if made into a Dart or Metro would require level crossings guarded by barriers.

end of the road · 22-06-2019 12:23pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

That sounds very similar to what was being proposed with the Metro. The section between Sandyford and Ballyogan Wood isn't suitable for heavy rail or even Metro due the high amount of interactions with roads which if made into a Dart or Metro would require level crossings guarded by barriers.

in terms of rebuilding the line to heavy rail, those issues i think are not that much of a problem really. if the level crossing gates are closed enough it might encourage people out of their car when they realise they are no longer having priority for their space wasting inefficient mode of transport. an other option would possibly be a bridge or 2 and remove all interaction with the roads.
it's not going to happen, that is a given, but it might be a good discussion in itself.

Lackadaisical · 22-06-2019 12:38pm

I'd say it might make more sense to just include Cork Midleton and Cobh commuter routes as part of the management / procurement for a future DART upgrade, when Irish Rail is upgrading one of the diesel commuter routes in Dublin, I don't think it would be a bad idea to get maximum bang for buck and do that route too.

You could easily pool major maintenance and so on too.

The key thing in Cork would be smooth passenger interchange with a future tram system at Kent Station.

I think we overkill the notion that people will have huge issues changing from one line to another. They don't have to be entirely mechanically and electrically compatibles and share rolling stock.

The same applies in Dublin. There needs to be smoother interchange and more interchange with better ticketing models.

We have the infrastructure in place with Leap but the tickets are still rather single mode focused.

The bus networks also need to link far better into the commuter rail systems.

IE 222 · 22-06-2019 8:33pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

That sounds very similar to what was being proposed with the Metro. The section between Sandyford and Ballyogan Wood isn't suitable for heavy rail or even Metro due the high amount of interactions with roads which if made into a Dart or Metro would require level crossings guarded by barriers.

I think that section of the line will need to bypassed with any upgrade other than Luas. The line would need to route through Leopardstown Race course.

donvito99 · 23-06-2019 4:55pm

But supposing Dart Underground is built, all four principal lines in Dublin are thru-running i.e. Drogheda - Hazelhatch, Maynooth - Greystones.

So Dart cannibalising the Green Line is unnecessary in that Metro trains would deliver as near as makes no difference the same capacity. There would be three high capacity lines into and thru the city centre with zero difference in real terms to Joe Commuter.

The only reason, therefore, to propose to re-gauge the Green Line for Dart is an "I like trains, and I would like to photograph 071 at Sandyford some day" argument.

end of the road · 23-06-2019 5:52pm

donvito99 wrote: »

But supposing Dart Underground is built, all four principal lines in Dublin are thru-running i.e. Drogheda - Hazelhatch, Maynooth - Greystones.

So Dart cannibalising the Green Line is unnecessary in that Metro trains would deliver as near as makes no difference the same capacity. There would be three high capacity lines into and thru the city centre with zero difference in real terms to Joe Commuter.

heavy rail would deliver more capacity long term on that corridor, especially with signalling headways decreasing. unless the metro trains are going to be the same size and length and have the same configuration as units operating the dart service.
that corridor needs to deliver huge capacity and for generations to come so a very serious sollution is going to be needed, so any metro would have to be extremely high capacity. because unlike other countries who are willing to spend the money upgrading capacity when it is needed, we don't until we are essentially forced to do it.

donvito99 wrote: »

The only reason, therefore, to propose to re-gauge the Green Line for Dart is an "I like trains, and I would like to photograph 071 at Sandyford some day" argument.

the fact that plenty of actual reasons have been given for the proposal, with a recognition that it won't actually happen, debunks this claim, not that the claim had any validity anyway.

donvito99 · 23-06-2019 7:20pm

end of the road wrote: »

heavy rail would deliver more capacity long term on that corridor, especially with signalling headways decreasing. unless the metro trains are going to be the same size and length and have the same configuration as units operating the dart service.
that corridor needs to deliver huge capacity and for generations to come so a very serious sollution is going to be needed, so any metro would have to be extremely high capacity. because unlike other countries who are willing to spend the money upgrading capacity when it is needed, we don't until we are essentially forced to do it.

the fact that plenty of actual reasons have been given for the proposal, with a recognition that it won't actually happen, debunks this claim, not that the claim had any validity anyway.

But heavy rail can be accommodated on that corridor, provided underground stations are built to accommodate longer platforms.

The only difference is that the gauge is 1435mm as opposed to the RPSI special gauge.

Del.Monte · 23-06-2019 7:22pm

An 071 at Stillorgan sounds a good enough reason for a heavy rail conversion to me.

end of the road · 23-06-2019 8:58pm

donvito99 wrote: »

But heavy rail can be accommodated on that corridor, provided underground stations are built to accommodate longer platforms.

The only difference is that the gauge is 1435mm as opposed to the RPSI special gauge.

yes agreed.
however if it was converted to heavy rail which is unlikely, having it the same as the rest of the network just makes everything far far easier. comonality of everything, able to move units around easier, allows for greater combenations of services etc.

godtabh · 23-06-2019 9:03pm

L1011 wrote: »

Manchester Metrolink replaced two extant heavy rail lines;

I worked on that. Engineering speaking it was relatively straight forward project.

IE 222 · 25-06-2019 12:26pm

donvito99 wrote: »

But supposing Dart Underground is built, all four principal lines in Dublin are thru-running i.e. Drogheda - Hazelhatch, Maynooth - Greystones.

So Dart cannibalising the Green Line is unnecessary in that Metro trains would deliver as near as makes no difference the same capacity. There would be three high capacity lines into and thru the city centre with zero difference in real terms to Joe Commuter.

The only reason, therefore, to propose to re-gauge the Green Line for Dart is an "I like trains, and I would like to photograph 071 at Sandyford some day" argument.

I really don't think Dublin needs 3 rail modes to be honest. I see more benefits scrapping metro for a Dart upgrade if LUAS is to be removed.

Using Dart on all Dublin and regional networks offers a lot more potential and savings. Combine the 2 funds for DU & MN and build one big network which will offer so much more for people inside and outside of Dublin as well.

With the PPT open and been upgraded for Dart and an interconnecting station purposed at Glasnevin the original DU plan should be scrapped and built elsewhere to allow a new route branch off the purposed Metro tunnel.

A Dart line from Woodbrook to Donabate/Malahide via Sandyford, city centre, Glasnevin, airport and Swords would also offer massive relief to the Wexford and Northern lines which are only going to continue growing in demand.

donvito99 · 25-06-2019 4:05pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I really don't think Dublin needs 3 rail modes to be honest. I see more benefits scrapping metro for a Dart upgrade if LUAS is to be removed.

Benefits are almost totally undermined by extent of the disruption to the existing Green Line's commuters which go on for years, just so a train operating Maynooth to Bray could theoretically venture on to a different line.

Using Dart on all Dublin and regional networks offers a lot more potential and savings. Combine the 2 funds for DU & MN and build one big network which will offer so much more for people inside and outside of Dublin as well.

1. What real economies are to be had by starting again on the Green Line? Luas is run perfectly well, and Dart to a certain extent. We are talking about distinct, separate high frequency commuter lines. At the end of the day, it commonality or uniformity is irrelevant considering the scale and size of Dublin. All three lines could run on separate gauges and the cost penalities would be negligible.

2. That Dart, over a Metro, would offer more to people inside Dublin is also highly questionable. To a commuter, a train is a train is a train. The Piccadilly line, for instance, runs circa 100m trains at 24tph = approx 20,000pph in each direction.

L1011 · 25-06-2019 4:16pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I really don't think Dublin needs 3 rail modes to be honest. I see more benefits scrapping metro for a Dart upgrade if LUAS is to be removed.

Metro will be run identically (to the consumer) as Luas - there will be no difference, there will only be two modes

And anyway, they'll all be identically fared soon enough. Effectively one mode to consumers.

Stephen15 · 25-06-2019 5:07pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I think that section of the line will need to bypassed with any upgrade other than Luas. The line would need to route through Leopardstown Race course.

Plenty of people live there and there's no other means of viable means of public transport for people living around Ballyogan and Leopardstown. The plan is for the metro to go as far as Sandyford and then that section will remain Luas and be extended to Bray. DART underground is less likely to go ahead than metro.

IE 222 · 28-06-2019 7:58pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Benefits are almost totally undermined by extent of the disruption to the existing Green Line's commuters which go on for years, just so a train operating Maynooth to Bray could theoretically venture on to a different line.

1. What real economies are to be had by starting again on the Green Line? Luas is run perfectly well, and Dart to a certain extent. We are talking about distinct, separate high frequency commuter lines. At the end of the day, it commonality or uniformity is irrelevant considering the scale and size of Dublin. All three lines could run on separate gauges and the cost penalities would be negligible.

2. That Dart, over a Metro, would offer more to people inside Dublin is also highly questionable. To a commuter, a train is a train is a train. The Piccadilly line, for instance, runs circa 100m trains at 24tph = approx 20,000pph in each direction.

Do you honestly believe the Green line will be revamped within a 4 month closure. If Metro is replacing Luas the line will be shut for an extremely long period. If Luas can suffice the demand I'm all for leaving it be and make the small improvements where needs be but a Metro upgrade will require major works.

Not really looking at from a branding point of view but more so of having a common fleet that can be moved around, capacity altered, less depots, staffing costs and reducing the need of buying and designing another fleet of trains. This 2/3 min frequency and driver less trains is fantasy stuff.

IE 222 · 28-06-2019 8:12pm

L1011 wrote: »

Metro will be run identically (to the consumer) as Luas - there will be no difference, there will only be two modes

And anyway, they'll all be identically fared soon enough. Effectively one mode to consumers.

Im not looking at it from a consumer perspective more so an operating and cost one. Another separate fleet of trains, a separate set of drivers, separate depot's, separate facilities and staff, separate maintenance staff and equipment. This stuff ain't cheap why increase the costs unnecessarily when we already have 2 companies and rail modes capable of doing the same job a new 3rd can do. We the tax payer will get a better deal buying in bulk than investing in so many different types of equipment.

Giving the MN system to DART will give IE more fares and in return we pay less subsidies to them.

IE 222 · 28-06-2019 8:22pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Plenty of people live there and there's no other means of viable means of public transport for people living around Ballyogan and Leopardstown. The plan is for the metro to go as far as Sandyford and then that section will remain Luas and be extended to Bray. DART underground is less likely to go ahead than metro.

It's a relatively short section to bypass. A good bus service linking with Sandyford stop will suffice their needs. I think the idea of terminating a Metro at Sandyford due to this issue just shows the lack of vision and ability of the NTA. Either build it right or don't build it at all. Once Cherrywood is complete Luas will be overwhelmed and the idea of transferring at Sandyford is ridiculous.

Stephen15 · 28-06-2019 8:27pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Im not looking at it from a consumer perspective more so an operating and cost one. Another separate fleet of trains, a separate set of drivers, separate depot's, separate facilities and staff, separate maintenance staff and equipment. This stuff ain't cheap why increase the costs unnecessarily when we already have 2 companies and rail modes capable of doing the same job a new 3rd can do. We the tax payer will get a better deal buying in bulk than investing in so many different types of equipment.

Giving the MN system to DART will give IE more fares and in return we pay less subsidies to them.

What are you suggesting that IE run the Metro under the Dart brand or have it connected up to the 5ft 3 gauge rail network. If the latter than that's going to cost more as platforms will have to be longer, the system will be more maintenance intensive and it will cost more to connect to the rest of the rail network.

If what you are saying is the case then it would be cheaper to built DU than the Metro.

Stephen15 · 28-06-2019 8:32pm

IE 222 wrote: »

It's a relatively short section to bypass. A good bus service linking with Sandyford stop will suffice their needs. I think the idea of terminating a Metro at Sandyford due to this issue just shows the lack of vision and ability of the NTA. Either build it right or don't build it at all. Once Cherrywood is complete Luas will be overwhelmed and the idea of transferring at Sandyford is ridiculous.

So you're essentially saying we should rip existing infrastructure. Luas will be overwhelmed once Cherrywood is built hence why Metro is needed and I wouldn't call the idea of transferring at Cherrywood ridiculous transfers from one mode to another are done all over the world without issues. Metro will likely be at a frequency of 5 mins or better at peak so there shouldn't be any issues transferring.

L1011 · 29-06-2019 8:52am

IE 222 wrote: »

Im not looking at it from a consumer perspective more so an operating and cost one. Another separate fleet of trains, a separate set of drivers, separate depot's, separate facilities and staff, separate maintenance staff and equipment. This stuff ain't cheap why increase the costs unnecessarily when we already have 2 companies and rail modes capable of doing the same job a new 3rd can do. We the tax payer will get a better deal buying in bulk than investing in so many different types of equipment.

Giving the MN system to DART will give IE more fares and in return we pay less subsidies to them.

As Metro will be 1435mm, giving operation to IE will save absolutely nothing and just tie it to IEs higher cost base.

tabbey · 29-06-2019 4:45pm

end of the road wrote: »

the lines replaced by both metro and tram schemes in the uk were very lightly used and infrequently serviced lines and were probably on the verge of closure in some cases, at least the earlier examples.

I beg to differ with this part of your post; Manchester Victoria to Bury was reasonably well used, while Piccadilly / Oxford Road to Altrincham was one of the busiest suburban services in the North of England.

Manchester Metrolink was devised not because of poor usage, but because for many years there had been calls for a link between Piccadilly and Victoria stations. Metrolink was a lot cheaper than a new underground connection.

donvito99 · 29-06-2019 4:45pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe the Green line will be revamped within a 4 month closure. If Metro is replacing Luas the line will be shut for an extremely long period. If Luas can suffice the demand I'm all for leaving it be and make the small improvements where needs be but a Metro upgrade will require major works.

Not really looking at from a branding point of view but more so of having a common fleet that can be moved around, capacity altered, less depots, staffing costs and reducing the need of buying and designing another fleet of trains. This 2/3 min frequency and driver less trains is fantasy stuff.

Only if Irish Rail were to run it presumably, lots of other systems do this comfortably.

I'll say this again, there are virtually zero cost advantages to a common system and what's more, there's no need for this when we are looking for separate, high frequency lines that interchange. Dinky little 60m Metro trains will likely give the Dart a run for its money for a fraction of the expenditure.

end of the road · 29-06-2019 5:40pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Only if Irish Rail were to run it presumably, lots of other systems do this comfortably.

I'll say this again, there are virtually zero cost advantages to a common system and what's more, there's no need for this when we are looking for separate, high frequency lines that interchange. Dinky little 60m Metro trains will likely give the Dart a run for its money for a fraction of the expenditure.

even if that would be the case. they would be so restricted and restrictive in terms of capacity that it would make the whole thing useless long term. what happens when the whole thing outgrows itself, which it likely will if we are only going to have 60m trains, even if it is at 3 minute frequency? it needs proper full length trains, not 60m dinky ones, even if we aren't going to integrate it with the 2 other existing rail types.

donvito99 · 29-06-2019 5:51pm

end of the road wrote: »

even if that would be the case. they would be so restricted and restrictive in terms of capacity that it would make the whole thing useless long term. what happens when the whole thing outgrows itself, which it likely will if we are only going to have 60m trains, even if it is at 3 minute frequency? it needs proper full length trains, not 60m dinky ones, even if we aren't going to integrate it with the 2 other existing rail types.

Right, so let's build it to Dart length (underground stations, lengthen existing platforms)... So what then is the reason for this argument for replacing Metro with Dart?

end of the road · 29-06-2019 6:16pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Right, so let's build it to Dart length (underground stations, lengthen existing platforms)... So what then is the reason for this argument for replacing Metro with Dart?

better economies of scale and integration seem to be the arguments. same unit types, use of existing depots, use of existing rail knowledge, etc.
even if we don't integrate it with dart, it is going to need to be a massively high capacity system which can withstand growth for a long long time given our refusal to continuously invest when growth occurs and extra capacity is needed.
if all we are going to get are trains of 60m, then we probably may as well just leave it as luas and get the signalling headways down to allow greater frequency.
do it properly or not at all.

Stephen15 · 29-06-2019 6:52pm

No reason why it couldn't be to take trains of a length of 90m or 100m which would be somewhere in the middle between the length of a DART train and Luas tram . Could start off initially with 60m trains but platforms could be built to take a 90m train so as the service gets busier trains can be lengthened where appropriate just like the way Green trams are being lengthened to 54m and red line trams were lengthened.

60m HFV trains would still represent a significant capacity increase over 54m LFV Luas trams. Due to the fact they are designed to take a larger amount of passengers than trams as the bogies are fully underneath the tram and not taking up space in allowing for a larger amount of standing space inside the train if bench style seats are implemented.

Last Stop · 01-07-2019 9:36pm

With metro going to Driverless High floor 65m trains, the benefit of DART is minimal.
In terms of the future of the green line south of Sandyford, metro going direct via Leopardstown to Bray while the Luas going via Ballygobbin etc. to Tallaght via Sandyford would work quite well...

IE 222 · 12-07-2019 3:28pm

L1011 wrote: »

As Metro will be 1435mm, giving operation to IE will save absolutely nothing and just tie it to IEs higher cost base.

Correct, but I'm not proposing to build it at 1435mm my suggestion is to build it as DART.

IE 222 · 12-07-2019 3:34pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

What are you suggesting that IE run the Metro under the Dart brand or have it connected up to the 5ft 3 gauge rail network. If the latter than that's going to cost more as platforms will have to be longer, the system will be more maintenance intensive and it will cost more to connect to the rest of the rail network.

If what you are saying is the case then it would be cheaper to built DU than the Metro.

Yes, 5ft 3 is the way to go as that's what we currently have throughout the country. Forget MN & DU as they are use the finds for both projects and build something more useful. DU can be shoehorned now with the PPT route been opened. We are currently shifting all Dublin and regional heavy rail to one common fleet. These plans need a fresh look from a cost perspective.

The Wexford and Northern lines need relief and a Dart line running from Shankil to Donabate in replace of Luas and Metro will provide this.

IE 222 · 12-07-2019 3:40pm

Last Stop wrote: »

With metro going to Driverless High floor 65m trains, the benefit of DART is minimal.
In terms of the future of the green line south of Sandyford, metro going direct via Leopardstown to Bray while the Luas going via Ballygobbin etc. to Tallaght via Sandyford would work quite well...

Giving the cost of building the shell of a hospital in this country, when the bill for building tunnels comes in the first thing to be scaled back on to save costs will be the fleet. Forget 65m high floor driverless trams at 2-3 min frequencies. The NTA are struggling to get a few bus lanes put in place, even if the budget was there they will not deliver anything like this.

L1011 · 12-07-2019 5:01pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Giving the cost of building the shell of a hospital in this country, when the bill for building tunnels comes in the first thing to be scaled back on to save costs will be the fleet. Forget 65m high floor driverless trams at 2-3 min frequencies. The NTA are struggling to get a few bus lanes put in place, even if the budget was there they will not deliver anything like this.

The units will be ordered about the time the TBMs start and the entire construction will be based around the vehicle type.

They'll be automated high floor 1435mm units. Not anything else.

Tunnels AND trains for 1600mm would be dearer anyway - put the crayons away. Irish Rail will not be getting their inefficient claws on Metrolink either, so that idea can be dropped.

IE 222 · 17-07-2019 3:57pm

L1011 wrote: »

The units will be ordered about the time the TBMs start and the entire construction will be based around the vehicle type.

They'll be automated high floor 1435mm units. Not anything else.

Tunnels AND trains for 1600mm would be dearer anyway - put the crayons away. Irish Rail will not be getting their inefficient claws on Metrolink either, so that idea can be dropped

Have you signed off on all this.

L1011 · 17-07-2019 6:28pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Have you signed off on all this.

You are the one going on a crayon fantasy with zero idea of reality, costs or complexity.

Is it worth "downgrading" a commuter line?

Comments