Does the Interconnector represent value for money; is a Central Dublin metro better?

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

PHILIP,
We differ in that you think the Interconnector will add lots of extra capacity; I am more sceptical. You think Maynooth/Bray DARTs can run at high frequency; I don't: I think with Arrows and intercities sharing trackspace on the southside line, you can't have smooth frequencies of trains running through the loop line from Bray to Maynooth. That's a circle you can't square.

Its an imaginary circle, much like your circle line. With the Dublin Rail plan, there will be no more arrows. The brand will cease to exist. Anyway, arrows operate from heuston to kildare at present, they go nowhere near the loop line, the southern line to bray or the maynooth line.

EDIT: After some more research, it appears there is a very infrequent and irregular service to arklow using arrow railcars. However, it is so infrequent I can't see it being a problem.

Southern intercities will have to contend with the twin track coastal route in the south, but they're doing that already. They could run the dart to a clockface frequency of every 10 or 7.5 minutes right now if it wasn't for the loop line's constraints. Thats with all the comingled traffic on both the southern and northern legs of the current dart line. When you consider the relatively low frequency of non commuter rail on the southern leg of this line (it is a coastal line to rosslare - not exactlly a high traffic stretch of track...), you can't seriously consider this as an impediment to the success of the maynooth - bray route.

Even if they go from 16 trains p/h to 12 trains p/h to facilitate other train movements on the southern track (a number I pulled out of the air, btw), that's still a train every 5 minutes. That's metro level service.

Look at this map of the proposed dublin rail plan before you make any more embarrasing gaffes about what the proposal is or isn't.

Metrobest wrote:

You won't find me quibbling that an Interconnector would bring extra capacity: but only to EXISTING lines.

What you seem incabable of grasping is that this is the entire point. We get the benefits of a modern, integrated suburban and urban railway system without having to invest in an entirely new system which, quite frankly, this country can afford but will never pay for. Those are the political realities of the situation. Rail will not have as big a budget as road for a long long time to come. Perhaps when the Dublin Rail Plan is successful then it will be easier to sell rail than it currently is.

Metrobest wrote:

So why am I against the Interconnector? Simple. I don't think it delivers enough extra passengers. A Circle and North/South line would delivers tonnes more passengers for a similar cost. And I think the future lies in URBAN rail, not provincial rail.

I think that for whatever reason, you've convinced yourself that people won't use the inner stations on these lines as anything other than terminating points for people commuting in from the first stop on each line. This isn't about moving people from maynooth to the city centre, its about movin everyone living along that line to anywhere else on that line or any other line in the entire urban / suburban network. With one change. That's a rail system we can be proud of, and one we can then look at expanding with more lines (I happen to believe that we need a north / south line to serve the north west and south west parts of the city, but its useless until we get the network fixed first)

The dublin rail plan creates both an urban and suburban rail network, integrates them completely, and provides a high level of service to its passengers. Why not accept it as a good starting point?

Metrobest wrote:

What I want to create is a central Dublin metro bringing benefits to NEW rail users in areas that have never had a rail option before. Dublin deserves this and shouldn't have to make do with a third-rate bus network.

How about a first rate bus network, integrated with a top notch suburban / urban railway system?

How about bringing rail to these people by building extra lines after we've made the case for an integrated transport solution for Dublin, rather than several unintegrated, overly expensive projects that do not even co-ordinate to try and solve the problem?

Metrobest wrote:

PHILIP ''There are only 2 proposals before governemnt now and one of them will win.''

Well that's too bad. Because neither of these proposals brings value for money to the taxpayer. The Airport Metro is a vanity project, nice for the tourists but of little use to the commuting Dubliner. The Interconnector is nice for people who already have access to rail, but it does very little to relieve traffic pressure in central Dublin; it fails to bring rail to metropolitan areas in Dublin, and it doesn't deliver enough extra passengers to justify its (exorbitant) cost. Plus it spawns yet more suburban sprawl; so a central Dublin Metro, on the other hand, draws people into the central Dublin area and keeps the soul of the city in tact.

You've got to be kidding me. Do you understand anything about how politics works? Do you know how long its taken to even get these two options considered?

The dublin rail plan creates an integrated city area network whick then sperads out to the suburbs. If you're so sure about rail drawing in high density development, then this plan creates two new corridors of high density development, along with a central loop (which is already pretty high density. In fact, rail is not needed as an incentive for high density housing development inside the city centre area, its happening already)

Do me a favour. Take this image and draw your circle line on it, and show me where it is significantly better in the city area.

Victor

OK, you two whingeing bitches can take your private little spammy arguments elsewhere or theres banning in the offing. And learn to use the [quote] system properly.

Victor

On the discussion on population density, kindly look at http://www.dublin.ie/index.asp?locID=246&docID=232

For a practical demonstration. (a) Site on left has 19 four-bedroomed three-storey house. Typical population 76.* (b) Site on right has 1 two-bedroomed, 2 three-bedroomed and 3 four-bedroomed houses (all two-storey). Typical population 21.

Based on one-bedroomed = 1.5 people, two-bedroomed = 2.5 people, three-bedroomed = 3.5 people and four-bedroomed = 4 people.

sliabh

I always thought of high density as collections of dedicated purpose appartment blocks. Like what you see circling the IFSC these days. Rather than a terrace of 3 and 4 bedroom houses in Rathmines. That more fits my idea of medium density.

murphaph

For fear of being banned by Victor I shall cease and desist!

I belive Maxheadroom made most of the points I would have countered with anyway. Please though, do as Max asks and draw out your route on his map and post it here so we can all see.

You know nothing (as evidenced by your lack of knowledge about Ashtown station and your fantasies about all these inter city trains from ROSSLARE clogging the Bray DART line, btw, there are things called pasing loops along that track where trains can 'overtake' each other) about the workings of the existing rail network and its deficencies which can be solved with the Dublin Rail Plan (aka interconnector). Once these are solved we can massively expand Dublin Area Rapid Transit (DART) to new locations. I say new locations because the Dublin Rail Plan itself will draw in new patrons in their thousands.

Sliabh,
I agree with your comments concerning Rathmines etc, these are not high density areas at all. A lot of 2 up 2 downs etc, no better than 'sprawling D15'!! Metrobest wants to build a metro to these people (who don't drive into the city anyway) before removing cars from the N1, N3, N4, N7, N11 all spilling into the city every morning.

One final point before I finish here.............Metrobest asked me why I was arguing with him over D15 (after he'd completely lost the argument of course). I tell him this: I argued with you because you were making things up and ignoring facts. Anyone who has followed this thread will realise that when presented with a fact that doesn't fit your argument, you ignore it! how convenient, unfortunately on the ground one can't ignore the thousands of cars choking the arteries of this city. They are not driven by people in Rathmines or Harolds X (who walk, cycle,or take a bus down a bus lane to work in town). They are driven by people coming into the city.

sliabh

murphaph wrote:

these are not high density areas at all. A lot of 2 up 2 downs etc, no better than 'sprawling D15'!! Metrobest wants to build a metro to these people (who don't drive into the city anyway) before removing cars from the N1, N3, N4, N7, N11 all spilling into the city every morning.

There is a lot more to urban transport than just removing cars from the roads and providing links into the city for people in the outer suburbs.

I lived in Ranelagh up until recently and walked to work (35 minutes each way). I still wanted and needed the Luas. I work in Sandyford occasionally, I have friends around the city that I would prefer to be able to visit without using a car, my preferred cinema is the UGC on Parnell street, I like pottering around the Pheonix park and so on.
(Victor should I declare these as my interests? )

At the moment about 40% of my public transport needs are work related. The rest is personal. And there are a lot more people like me that want a good public transport network for more than just commuting to work. People without cars are as important if not more so than car owners. If you have no car then you are much more dependant on the public transport network.

Metrobest

VICTOR ''OK, you two whingeing bitches can take your private little spammy arguments elsewhere or theres (sic) banning in the offing. And learn to use the

system properly.''

Very well. Our 'private' argument (viewed 735 times and with more than 50 contributions, making it one of the most popular discussions on this thread-page) has moved to entertainment.ie forums.. Go to the ''visiting Ireland'' page.

The argument wasn't spammy. Spammy isn't even a word. And I'm not a bitch. Funny how being a moderator seems to give you the right to say what you like, and to ban people you don't agree with. Heil Victor!

Oh and by the way, I'll learn to 'quote properly' when you learn how to use apostrophes properly.

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

VICTOR ''OK, you two whingeing bitches can take your private little spammy arguments elsewhere or theres (sic) banning in the offing. And learn to use the [.quote] system properly.''

Very well. Our 'private' argument (viewed 735 times and with more than 50 contributions, making it one of the most popular discussions on this thread-page) has moved to entertainment.ie forums.. Go to the ''visiting Ireland'' page.

The argument wasn't spammy. Spammy isn't even a word. And I'm not a bitch. Funny how being a moderator seems to give you the right to say what you like, and to ban people you don't agree with. Heil Victor!

Oh and by the way, I'll learn to 'quote properly' when you learn how to use apostrophes properly.

Metrobest, I have better things to do than follow you across all the forums you can get yourself banned from to hear you not answer anybody's arguments.

But, I did notice how you haven't drawn your lines out for anyone. Despite being asked both on this board and on P11's boards (before your departure).

And as for my lack of knowledge about the arrow service to gorey / arklow, you're right, I didn't know about it. However I did mention the intercity service to rosslare europort. ("Southern intercities will have to contend with the twin track coastal route in the south, but they're doing that already." followed by "it is a coastal line to rosslare"). Then I went, did a bit of research and came back and admitted I'd been wrong about the arrow service. Its called being the bigger person.

Maybe you could learn something from that.

PS: Are you seriously contending that people won't use stephen's green, pearse, spencer dock and drumcondra stations to begin and end journies?

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Our 'private' argument (viewed 735 times and with more than 50 contributions, making it one of the most popular discussions on this thread-page)

--Wow, we actually agree on something!

However I, like Maxheadroom cannot see the logic in jumping from forum to forum being banned all along the way. I looked at your post on the entertainment Ireland forums and it's littered with anomalies that I would like to address, but not there, here or nowhere.

We either keep it here or it dies and seeing as this is not my forum. Victor this debates life is in your hands!

Metrobest

Obviously people are interested in what I say since my post on entertainment.ie forum has been viewed 8 times in Visting Ireland - a discussion platfrom that up until two hours ago was never used.

I'm not going to debate with you on this forum with a threat of being banned hanging over my head. P11 tried the same thing: saying ''take your arguments elsewhere'' and then quietly banned me, burying all my contributions at the back-end of their fora.

This is an interesting and popular debate. I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me, that's irrelevent. What matters is that I have the right to air viewpoints other than pro-Interconnector or pro-Airport Metro.

By banning my contributions, Victor is creating a climate of fear in which anyone with an alternative viewpoint is forced into silence. That's what undemocratic countries do, not what you'd expect boards.ie to do.

This thread was strarted by me and I want to debate it: the merits of the Interconnector, and the potential of my Central Dublin Metro. But I would like an assurance from Victor that I won't be banned for saying what a lot of other people are thinking.

sliabh

I don't think it is the viewpoint that is the problem, more the very long argumentative posts that had descended to the level of nitpicking indivdual points. I know I was just jumping over them to get to anyone else's interesting contributions.

Keep it short and keep it snappy.

Frankly, bring back dueling I say. There's a way to settle arguments that the public can really enjoy watching. It would make a great spectator sport on TV too.

"Today live at 6am, from St Stephens Green, the Interconnector vs Metro debate, featuring Murphaph and Metrobest, with pistols at 20 paces"

Of course Sky would probably buy up the rights. Spoilsports.

Don't mind me here, I think I am away with the faries today

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

Obviously people are interested in what I say since my post on entertainment.ie forum has been viewed 8 times in Visting Ireland - a discussion platfrom that up until two hours ago was never used.

At least 4 of those were me...

And, I don't think you'll find anyone who'll agree with your characterisation of Victor's modding (well, maybe Bee...)

P11 Comms

Interconnector FAQ:

http://www.platform11.org/inter_faq.html

jd

P11 Comms wrote:

Interconnector FAQ:

http://www.platform11.org/inter_faq.html
"Yes, a direct connection will be provided to Dublin Airport, a new line will be built from Grange Rd north of Portmarnock to the Airport."

South of Portmarnock-just north of a new station at Baldoyle perhaps?

Metrobest

Getting back to the Interconnector again, a point that's struck me is one highly relevent for passengers on the Howth, Malahide and Drogheda lines. Their trains will no longer call at Connolly Or Tara.

And passengers from Maynooth will have to go all the way to Pearse if they want to take a train to Clontarf Road. At present Maynooth passengers can take the Northbound DART by changing from Platform 6 to Platform 7 at Connolly. So not a very good ''interconnection'' here. I take it P11 won't be handing out flyers in Killester and Raheny, telling people their trains will no longer call at Connolly or Tara, the two most central stations in Dublin.

It again illustrates the gap in the system. Under a Central Dublin Metro, my plan, Maynooth passengers could stilll change in Connolly for the DART. Northside passengers inbound could change for the CDM at Connolly, getting them to the most central points of Dubiln with speed.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Getting back to the Interconnector again......passengers from Maynooth will have to go all the way to Pearse if they want to take a train to Clontarf Road. At present Maynooth passengers can take the Northbound DART by changing from Platform 6 to Platform 7 at Connolly. So not a very good ''interconnection'' here.

--They can alright, if their infrequent train arrives before another slightly less infrequent DART on the other platform. They won't have to worry about frequencies on either of these 2 lines with the interconnector DARTs will run at metro frequency so traveling another 2 stops (transit time 2 minutes max) will have no negative impact. Bear in mind also that a station may be built at East Wall Junction at some point in the future though this is not part of the initial scheme.

Metrobest wrote:

I take it P11 won't be handing out flyers in Killester and Raheny, telling people their trains will no longer call at Connolly or Tara, the two most central stations in Dublin.

--Yeah, they'll be handing out flyers telling them their trains run to the new underground stations at Spencer Dock, Pearse, Stephen's Green (not central?), Christchurch and on out to Kildare with 0 change. The can still travel to Connolly or Tara with 1 change from one metro frequency DART to another metro frequency DART. What's the problem? every metro system has changes-that's why they're so flexible.

Metrobest wrote:

It again illustrates the gap in the system. Under a Central Dublin Metro, my plan, Maynooth passengers could stilll change in Connolly for the DART. Northside passengers inbound could change for the CDM at Connolly, getting them to the most central points of Dubiln with speed

--So you reckon Northside pax (like Raheny that you mentioned above) can get to the central business district with one change at Connolly with your system? Why would they not prefer being brought directly there (Stephen's Green for example) with 0 changes with the interconnector?
If pax from northside stations want to get to north of the Liffey, no problem-Luas is going to connect with Spencer Dock station as it runs all along the Liffey between the Point and Heuston.

John R

Metrobest wrote:

Getting back to the Interconnector again, a point that's struck me is one highly relevent for passengers on the Howth, Malahide and Drogheda lines. Their trains will no longer call at Connolly Or Tara.

But they will call at Spencer dock for IFSC and Luas to Conolly and O'Connell St.
Stephen's green for well Stephen's Green which is currently 10 minutes brisk walk. Also a direct connection to Luas green line
Heuston, for south and west Inter-City services and the increasing amount of office/warehouse jobs along that line.

Metrobest wrote:

And passengers from Maynooth will have to go all the way to Pearse if they want to take a train to Clontarf Road. At present Maynooth passengers can take the Northbound DART by changing from Platform 6 to Platform 7 at Connolly. So not a very good ''interconnection'' here. I take it P11 won't be handing out flyers in Killester and Raheny, telling people their trains will no longer call at Connolly or Tara, the two most central stations in Dublin.

It again illustrates the gap in the system. Under a Central Dublin Metro, my plan, Maynooth passengers could stilll change in Connolly for the DART. Northside passengers inbound could change for the CDM at Connolly, getting them to the most central points of Dubiln with speed.

That is only if they manage to catch the hourly service that will not be improved upon. Frequent services that connect with other frequent services at proper connection points are not a big downside. Infrequent services because of choked lines are.


Oh BTW, If you want to make personal comments about P11 take it to their forums. No one wants to know about it here.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

--They can alright, if their infrequent train arrives before another slightly less infrequent DART on the other platform. They won't have to worry about frequencies on either of these 2 lines with the interconnector DARTs will run at metro frequency so traveling another 2 stops (transit time 2 minutes max) will have no negative impact. Bear in mind also that a station may be built at East Wall Junction at some point in the future though this is not part of the initial scheme..

I think somebody should stand outside Amiens Street and watch to see where most passengers from Connolly are heading. I would estimate at least 70 percent walks in the direction of O'Connell Street, the rest to Store Street and IFSC. So for the majority of passengers, getting to their final central destination will involve changing to an on-street LUAS via the Point and (ironicallly) Connolly, the station they would have arrived it were it not for the Interconnector!

murphaph wrote:

----Yeah, they'll be handing out flyers telling them their trains run to the new underground stations at Spencer Dock, Pearse, Stephen's Green (not central?), Christchurch and on out to Kildare with 0 change. The can still travel to Connolly or Tara with 1 change from one metro frequency DART to another metro frequency DART. What's the problem? every metro system has changes-that's why they're so flexible...

My point exactly. But in fairnesss, the interconnector requires Howth-Connolly passengers to travel via Spencer Dock two stations' past their destination, change at Pearse by walking down two escalators to reach the underground platfrom and then to wait for a connection from Pearse to Connolly (which could take another eight minutes, based on eight trains per hour on the Maynooth line through Connolly) . That is needless hassle, and for anyone who travels from to Connolly from the Northside, is a disimprovement on their current service levels. Not much point having more frequent trains if your journey takes ten minutes longer, is there?

I agree Stephen's Green needs a rail link. That's why it would connect with TWO metro lines, and the LUAS, under my plan.

murphaph wrote:

----So you reckon Northside pax (like Raheny that you mentioned above) can get to the central business district with one change at Connolly with your system? Why would they not prefer being brought directly there (Stephen's Green for example) with 0 changes with the interconnector?
If pax from northside stations want to get to north of the Liffey, no problem-Luas is going to connect with Spencer Dock station as it runs all along the Liffey between the Point and Heuston.

For Howth/Malahide/Drogeda- Connolly passengers, the Interconnector opens a 'window' (Stephen's Green, Heuston, Kildare in one change) but it bangs shut two very important 'doors': Connolly and Tara.

On-street LUAS will be prone to crawl around that whole area as it negotiates rush-hour traffic. Not a very satisfactory arrangement for a train that used to call at the central hub of Connolly station.

murphaph

The minumum time between trains travelling Pearse-Connolly will be 7.5 mins, not 8. This figure however is EXTREMELY conservative given the fact that IE state they will dedicate ALL 16 train slots per hour over the loop line to the Maynooth-Bray service and this would be a train every 3.5 mins.

How do you know there will be two escalators from the upstairs Pearse platforms to the subteranean platforms? There could be just one long escalator like London underground and Stockholm T-Bana systems. Or are you privvy to some secret information about the proposal or are you just making things up again?

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

Metrobest,
The minumum time between trains travelling Pearse-Connolly will be 7.5 mins, not 8. This figure however is EXTREMELY conservative given the fact that IE state they will dedicate ALL 16 train slots per hour over the loop line to the Maynooth-Bray service and this would be a train every 3.5 mins.

How do you know there will be two escalators from the upstairs Pearse platforms to the subteranean platforms? There could be just one long escalator like London underground and Stockholm T-Bana systems. Or are you privvy to some secret information about the proposal or are you just making things up again?

Where do IE say this? Can you provide a link? I'd be extremely interested to read about 3.5minute-frequencies of trains coming in from Bray via the hills of Dalkey, the innumerable level crossings on the line and the fact that this is a line that shares track space with slower, diesal locomotives.

As far as I'm aware the Interconnector station at Pearse would be built two levels below the current platforms. I also understand the INC station would be built roughly under where the present carpark is. So from platform to platform will not facilitate a single escalator; not least because constructing one would require the demolition of Pearse station as we know it.

If you're talking about Stockholm, I used to live there so I know it pretty well. Think of a station like Slussen (on Sodermalm) which connects to the Pendaltog (the Swedish DART/RER) To get from metro platform to Pendaltog platform takes five minutes by foot. The reason so many huge esacalators exist on the T-Bahn is that the tunnels are dug so deep and often one line will run beneath the other to facilitate quick movements of trains.

murphaph

This is a lengthy document. It is a presentation given to the houses of the Oireachtais by Iarnrod Eireanns chief executive, Joe Meagher. It outlines the signalling upgrade in the central area which will result in 16 trains per hour over the loop line (they call this the 'central area' to make it more easily understood to Dublin railway novices).

http://www.google.ie/search?q=cache:UghCY4Tcc4sJ:www.gov.ie/oireachtas/Committees-29th-D%25E1il/jct-debates/jt250204.rtf+interconnector+proposal+joe+meagher&hl=en

Iarnrod Eireann also state that no northern services will traverse the loop line as they will either terminate at Connolly in the case of Enterprise or continue to Kildare via Stephens Green in the case of DART.

Thy are also on record as saying that Rosslare Inter City services will run once per hour and terminate at Pearse. This leaves all 16 train paths per hour over the loop line to the Bray-Maynooth service.

To be fair, in one your posts you state that 70% of people coming out of Connolly go to O'Connell Street. Maybe they're passengers coming off trains that terminate at Connolly (Enterprise, Northern Suburban, Longford, Sligo and some Maynooth services all terminate here and so all these passengers HAVE to come out at Connolly or wait up to 25 minutes for a DART, I know-I took a train from Clonsilla last week that terminated at Connolly and the next DART wasn't for 25 minutes. I was heading towards Stephens Green) and they are going to Stephens Green or wherever. We don't know and you are just assuming they are coming off DARTs and assuming they are going to O'Connell Street.

dowlingm

I don't have anything to do with P11 but I post there and IRN and my attention was drawn to this post from one in P11 about Metrobest being banned.

It was only a matter of time before you were banned because not only did you disagree with other posters on the Metro/interconnector issue, but you basically accused them of lying when they made points you didn't agree with or just plain ignored facts that had been explained to you many times.

I eventually started skipping your posts coz all you did was repeat yourself in the face of people trying to explain stuff to you about the interconnector.

If P11 communications is listening - banning Metrobest for "slagging off P11" if this is accurate is a bit stupid. It makes P11 look juvenile. Please say it ain't so.

maxheadroom

I have figured out why metro best doesn't want to actually draw out his lines on a map for us. Look for yourself and see:

Metrobest's proposal
Dublin Rail Plan
The two superimposed

Anything strke you? The following things jumped out at me:

Firstly, that's an odd looking circle

Secondly, with the exception of the southern loop, the circle line is virtually identical in scope to the dublin rail plan post interconnector.

Thirdly, the north/south line as he proposed it is effectively useless - only providing one extra station, and duplicating the stretch from stephen's green to ranelagh (yet oddly ignoring the "POD" stop, is he trying to make this some kind of express line?)

Fourthly, the entire decending leg of this southern loop is duplication of the luas green line.

Finally, the only stops served by his proposal not served by the IE Dublin Rail plan are harolds cross and Parnell square. It seems to me that these places would be better served by either a luas line linking into the rail network or a new dart line to tallaght, looping through the city centre and on out to finglas.

murphaph

Nice work Max.

I think everyone can agree that this thing would be the wrong way to deliver high quality rapid transit to us Dubs when it's laid out on a map.

Man it's ugly! The interconnector is a hundred times more elegant.

maxheadroom

Oh, another few funny facts when you look at the map.

Metrobest wrote:

What I want to create is a central Dublin metro bringing benefits to NEW rail users in areas that have never had a rail option before. Dublin deserves this and shouldn't have to make do with a third-rate bus network.

According to the maps above, these areas consist solely of harold's Cross and Parnell Square (and possibly Ranelagh if he doesn't consider luas - light rail - to be a rail option).

Metrobest, on entertainment.ie wrote:

There's no point having a wonderful rail system that only the privileged minority can use. For proof of this just look at the map you've uplinked. The area between the two LUAS lines contains hundreds of thousands of people, all NOWHERE NEAR a station. You only have to look at all those road arteries leading into central Dublin, all of which are nowhere near a rail station, to confirm that the Interconnector will have minimal impact on traffic in central Dublin.

Somehow, metrobest believes trains whizzing through harold's cross every 3 minutes (the only unique station he has proposed between those luas lines, and the only unique station he has proposed on or near a road artery leading into the city) will have a larger impact on traffic flows in the city centre than a massively improved service on all suburban rail lines.

murphaph

and look how long it is.....IE reckon even fast tracking the interconnector will reult in it being complete in its entirety by 2010. There's a LOT more tunnelling required for Metrobests proposal so would be either 1) far more costly 2) take far longer or 3) both.

Metrobest

maxheadroom wrote:

I have figured out why metro best doesn't want to actually draw out his lines on a map for us. Look for yourself and see:

Firstly, that's an odd looking circle

Secondly, with the exception of the southern loop, the circle line is virtually identical in scope to the dublin rail plan post interconnector.

Thirdly, the north/south line as he proposed it is effectively useless - only providing one extra station, and duplicating the stretch from stephen's green to ranelagh (yet oddly ignoring the "POD" stop, is he trying to make this some kind of express line?).

Some Sherlock Holmes you are! The reason I didn't draw out my lines is simple: I don't know how to via a Jpeg image you've given. If you explain to me how to put the lines onto your map, I'll gladly oblige. My plan is nothing like the misleading shambles you drew on that map. You can make adjustments as follows:

You forgot to draw the station at Phibsborogh. I would place the station near the Church where the NCR intersects with the New Cabra Road. Here you have a large resident catchment area, plus the bus routes 10, 38, 120, 121, 122, 123 all feed into the station at this point.

You drew the Christchurch station in the wrong place. I would place it near the junction of Thomas Street/Francis Street with exit points at NCAD, Patrick Street and the Cathedral.

You didn't include Rathmines. I would place Rathmines station in the middle of Rathmines Road: exits at the Tesco, the junction with Rathgar Road and another exit nearer the Swan Centre. Again you have here a high-density local population plus a bevy of bus routes feeding into this main arterie.

The Harolds X station would be located at the Canal end of Harold's X. Again a major road and bus intersection point on the cusp of central Dublin.

There would be no station at Cabra under my plan. But Cabra residents would have easy access to Phibsborough station, by far the more logical place to put a rail link.

You forgot to draw in the College Green station on the North/South line. That's another omission.

You have drawn Heuston Station as it would be under the Interconnector - on my plan it would be slighly to the right: exit points beside the LUAS platforms, across the Liffey where the 66 bus stops and inside the station concourse for easy access for passengers changing from the Kildare line.

maxheadroom wrote:

Fourthly, the entire decending leg of this southern loop is duplication of the luas green line. Finally, the only stops served by his proposal not served by the IE Dublin Rail plan are harolds cross and Parnell square. .

Only from Ranelagh to Stephen's Green follows the route of the LUAS. And since the metro runs UG it's an entirely different mode of transport. It means someone can take metro from Harold's Cross to Ranelagh, changing for LUAS to Sandyford. That same person could also take Metro to Stephen's Green and change for the North/South line, getting off at Parnell sqare, the entire journey taking place on high-quality, reliable, dedicated metro-only network. Perfect.

So my plan would serve Phibsborough, Harold's Cross, POD, the Liberties, College Green, Rathmines, Parnell Square.... Hmmmm... I make that SEVEN stations in the CDA the INC won't serve.

The other irrefutible benefit of my plan is that exising rail routes stay the way they are: Kildare trains to Heuston, DARTs via the loop line, Maynooth trains to Drumcondra terminus. The other option would be to amalgamate the North/South and Maynooth lines, so the line would be Maynooth-Ranelagh, and Maynooth passengers could reach Ranelagh via Parnell Sq, College Grn and Stephen's Green with 0 changes. I'm just giving that an an option to show the possibilities engendered by a Central Dublin Metro. They're endless.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

and look how long it is.....IE reckon even fast tracking the interconnector will reult in it being complete in its entirety by 2010. There's a LOT more tunnelling required for Metrobests proposal so would be either 1) far more costly 2) take far longer or 3) both.

http://www.ivv.amsterdam.nl/nzlijn/english/informatie_nieuws.php?news_id=141&PHPSESSID=f2de42dfda497f037e5886bdeda1cc50
Again I'll have to point you to the Amsterdam North/South line. 9.5kms, under a harbour, 60metres below the historical centre, and the cost? 1.5bn Euros.

The Circle Line can utilise the Park Tunnel so a fair portion of its track is in place already. Work on the Amsterdam project began last year: the whole thing is expected to be up and running by 2009. If the politicians get their finger out, we can do the same!

Metrobest

maxheadroom wrote:

Fourthly, the entire decending leg of this southern loop is duplication of the luas green line..

In Amsterdam Tram 5 and 'sneltram' Metro line 51 (literally: fast tram) share the same track for half the route. Ask anybody on this route the difference between the two: while the Tram veers onto the streets and is liable to hold ups, the metro glides into Central Station without these difficulties.

Trams and Metros are entirely different modes of transport: they compliment each other but they are not the same. Capacity is totallly different, and metro is far quicker. In fact I think it's disingenuous of you to paint the LUAS lines onto your map: it's not a heavy rail line and as far as I'm aware there's no plan to bring metro along to Sandyford. That said, another great thing about the North/South line is the possibility of running through metro from Drumcondra to Sandyford at no extra cost to the North/South line project.

(Metros would not be able to travel Sandyford to Stephen's Green under the current system: you couldn't have metros running on Harcourt Street, but because Ranelagh is hooked up to my metro, the two are compatible.)

John R

murphaph

@ JohnR...............Fcuking Hilarious! I laughed my arse off at that!

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

(Metros would not be able to travel Sandyford to Stephen's Green under the current system: you couldn't have metros running on Harcourt Street, but because Ranelagh is hooked up to my metro, the two are compatible.)

--Sounds nice in theory (are you a spin doctor?), but you are ignoring those horrible facts again aren't you. Firstly, metro would not be compatible with Luas at all at the stops beyond Ranelagh even though their gauge might be identical. Luas employs low foor vehicles, a metro does not. The only way to make (read "bodge together") these two systems is to use split level platforms. Cologne did this in the 70's and regrets it and now they are working to reverse it because it means having ridiculously long platforms with ramps connecting the two different levels!

Metrobest wrote:

The other option would be to amalgamate the North/South and Maynooth lines, so the line would be Maynooth-Ranelagh, and Maynooth passengers could reach Ranelagh via Parnell Sq, College Grn and Stephen's Green with 0 changes

--What the fcuk? You can't be serious here. The Maynooth line uses a 5' 3" gauge. You state your metro would be compatible with Luas beyond ranelagh, implying it would use a 4' 8.5" gauge. These are completely incompatible so to suggest this might even be possible is only highlighting your ignorance.

Metrobest wrote:

The Circle Line can utilise the Park Tunnel so a fair portion of its track is in place already

--Again, you stated your metro would be compatible with the Luas beyond Ranelagh but hang on a second......the Park Tunnel is heavy rail with a 5' 3" gauge. Damn these 'facts' are awkward aren't they?! The Park Rail Tunnel is also the ONLY way of getting freight from Dublin Port to anywhere except the East Coast line at the moment. Yes, freight does run through that tunnel so you have ZERO chance of 'amalgamating' it it into your metro proposal. It has to stay heavy rail, 5' 3" and there can be no discussion on this.

Your proposal has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

Some Sherlock Holmes you are! The reason I didn't draw out my lines is simple: I don't know how to via a Jpeg image you've given. If you explain to me how to put the lines onto your map, I'll gladly oblige. My plan is nothing like the misleading shambles you drew on that map. You can make adjustments as follows:

The easiest way would be to open it in ms paint and draw the lines on the map freehand. I'm using adobe photoshop because it lets me create curved paths by entering just a handful of anchor points.

Anyway, I've made the adjustments you suggested to the "misleading shambles" and it looks quite similar...

Metrobest wrote:

You forgot to draw the station at Phibsborogh. I would place the station near the Church where the NCR intersects with the New Cabra Road. Here you have a large resident catchment area, plus the bus routes 10, 38, 120, 121, 122, 123 all feed into the station at this point.

Fixed. I don't know the northside very well, and I also assumed you'd want the interchange facility at glasnevin junction. My bad.

Metrobest wrote:

You didn't include Rathmines. I would place Rathmines station in the middle of Rathmines Road: exits at the Tesco, the junction with Rathgar Road and another exit nearer the Swan Centre. Again you have here a high-density local population plus a bevy of bus routes feeding into this main arterie.

That's because you didn't mention it in your first post. I've included a stop here now.

Metrobest wrote:

There would be no station at Cabra under my plan. But Cabra residents would have easy access to Phibsborough station, by far the more logical place to put a rail link.

Why? As you said, its a short walk between the two locations, but the other location is on both the phoenix park line and the maynooth line? Surely more interchange possibilities = better?

Metrobest wrote:

You forgot to draw in the College Green station on the North/South line. That's another omission.

My bad - I actually did have an anchor point here for it but forgot the "M". Fixed.

Metrobest wrote:

Only from Ranelagh to Stephen's Green follows the route of the LUAS. And since the metro runs UG it's an entirely different mode of transport. It means someone can take metro from Harold's Cross to Ranelagh, changing for LUAS to Sandyford. That same person could also take Metro to Stephen's Green and change for the North/South line, getting off at Parnell sqare, the entire journey taking place on high-quality, reliable, dedicated metro-only network. Perfect.

I fail to see the benefit to somebody sitting on a green line tram of an interchange at ranelagh instead of the green. You would also find such duplication of service very tough to explain to the money men.

Your person in harold's cross could be accomodated by an orbital type bus
route linking into ranelagh and the luas just as easily. Our transport planners, however, have shown no interest in facilitating this.

Metrobest wrote:

So my plan would serve Phibsborough

As would the cabra station in the DRP

Metrobest wrote:

POD

Green Luas

Metrobest wrote:

the Liberties

High Street, DRP

Metrobest wrote:

College Green

A five minute walk from either green luas or Stephen's green underground ststion.

Metrobest wrote:

Harolds Cross, Rathmines, Parnell Square.... Hmmmm... I make that SEVEN stations in the CDA the INC won't serve.

I count 3, one of which you never told us about until today. And adding a destination stop won't really help traffic much, will it? So we're down to 2. One of which you just added. My original point about stations on arterial routes into the city stands.

Metrobest wrote:

The other irrefutible benefit of my plan is that exising rail routes stay the way they are: Kildare trains to Heuston, DARTs via the loop line, Maynooth trains to Drumcondra terminus. The other option would be to amalgamate the North/South and Maynooth lines, so the line would be Maynooth-Ranelagh, and Maynooth passengers could reach Ranelagh via Parnell Sq, College Grn and Stephen's Green with 0 changes. I'm just giving that an an option to show the possibilities engendered by a Central Dublin Metro. They're endless.

I'm sorry, but what you see as a benefit is what the rest of us see as a critical problem. The interconenctor does pretty much everything your metro will do, with the exception of your loop to rathmines and harold's cross, and also provides an improved service to people on suburban routes. Your solution whizzes people around the centre of Dublin pretty well, but leaves no means to get the people there in the first place.

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

In Amsterdam Tram 5 and 'sneltram' Metro line 51 (literally: fast tram) share the same track for half the route. Ask anybody on this route the difference between the two: while the Tram veers onto the streets and is liable to hold ups, the metro glides into Central Station without these difficulties.

Yet again, this isn't Amsterdam. The green line is segragated for most of its trip, and has dedicated roadspace to the green. It also has priority at all intersections (all 3 of them) between peter's place and it's terminus.

Metrobest wrote:

Trams and Metros are entirely different modes of transport: they compliment each other but they are not the same. Capacity is totallly different, and metro is far quicker. In fact I think it's disingenuous of you to paint the LUAS lines onto your map: it's not a heavy rail line and as far as I'm aware there's no plan to bring metro along to Sandyford. That said, another great thing about the North/South line is the possibility of running through metro from Drumcondra to Sandyford at no extra cost to the North/South line project.
(Metros would not be able to travel Sandyford to Stephen's Green under the current system: you couldn't have metros running on Harcourt Street, but because Ranelagh is hooked up to my metro, the two are compatible.)

Wow. Did you read this before you pressed submit?

Firstly, how is it disingenuous of me to show light rail on a map of rail facilities for the city centre?

Next, its either possible to take the metro out to sandyford or it isn't. Make up your mind.

Next, even if you did decide to "upgrade" that luas line to metro, you couldn't do it for free, you'd have to rebuild every stop along the line. Which would be difficult in a lot of cases. Like balally for instance where they've build a huge residential and office development around the station.

finally, a bit about the rathmines issue. Rathmines is a nightmare in the mornings. Not because of the people living there, but because half of south dublin's bus routes try to squeeze through it exery day. You don't fix this by providing interchange to metro where the bottle neck is, you fix it by providing interchange to metro further out, at different points along the line for different bus routes.

murphaph

Hey Max,
You get the feeling neither of us will have the last word on this thread?!

maxheadroom

Yeah - I'm beginning to think the last word will be "locked", from Victor, and that its not very far off...

silverside

Victor don't lock it yet . It's entertaining and hasn't descended into personal abuse yet.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

-- Firstly, metro would not be compatible with Luas at all at the stops beyond Ranelagh even though their gauge might be identical. Luas employs low foor vehicles, a metro does not. The only way to make (read "bodge together") these two systems is to use split level platforms. Cologne did this in the 70's and regrets it and now they are working to reverse it because it means having ridiculously long platforms with ramps connecting the two different levels!.

It's very easily fixed. You would run short three-carriage metros between Ranelagh and Sandyford. Even a three-carriage metro has much higher capacity than a tram. In the case of Amsterdam, split level works pefectly on the metro 51/Tram 5 route. It's very nice for passengers too: you can take whichever mode arrives first, but in general the metro goes faster. Colonge has a better street-rail system than LUAS. Yes the platforms are long but look at the capacity! The on-street trains duplicate many of Cologne's underground routes (Neumarkt to Nollendorfplatz, for example), which just goes to show, on a busy route (like Ranelagh-Stephen's Green), you just can't have too much capacity.

murphaph wrote:

-- --What the fcuk? You can't be serious here. The Maynooth line uses a 5' 3" gauge. You state your metro would be compatible with Luas beyond ranelagh, implying it would use a 4' 8.5" gauge. These are completely incompatible so to suggest this might even be possible is only highlighting your ignorance. .

Sorry, I had heard the LUAS Sandyford line was compatible with heavy rail gauges. Obviously it's not. A factual error on my part. Please accept my apologies.

murphaph wrote:

-- --Again, you stated your metro would be compatible with the Luas beyond Ranelagh but hang on a second......the Park Tunnel is heavy rail with a 5' 3" gauge. Damn these 'facts' are awkward aren't they?! The Park Rail Tunnel is also the ONLY way of getting freight from Dublin Port to anywhere except the East Coast line at the moment. Yes, freight does run through that tunnel so you have ZERO chance of 'amalgamating' it it into your metro proposal. It has to stay heavy rail, 5' 3" and there can be no discussion on this..

Freightening! So freight is obviously something that's going to be a problem for the interconnector, too, isn't it? At least in my plan you're building a dedicated metro network. So either it can go UG from Heustion, following the alligment of the Park Route, or else build the circle line to the gauge specification of the Park Tunnel. I would have thought very little freight traffic uses the tunnel nowadays - what, one train per day? So if push comes to shove, metro will have to take priority over the odd freight train.

Metrobest

maxheadroom wrote:

Anyway, I've made the adjustments you suggested to the "misleading shambles" and it looks quite similar....

Thanks, but just another thing: could you take away the red line on the the Tallght LUAS. I just want a map that shows the Circle and North/South lines by themselves, a METRO ONLY map. Then it's very easy to see how central and beneficial the new stations are to all arteries into Dublin.

maxheadroom wrote:

Why? As you said, its a short walk between the two locations, but the other location is on both the phoenix park line and the maynooth line? Surely more interchange possibilities = better....

Maynooth passengers have a brilliant interchange in Drumcondra: to the Airport, the North/South line, anywhere on the Circle Line, the Northside DART at Connolly, Sandyford LUAS at Ranelagh, Tallaght LUAS at Connolly..
The station at Phibsborough is specifically for people in Cabra, NCR, Phinsborough itself, the 19 bus routes coming in from Ballymun and Glasnevin etc

maxheadroom wrote:

I fail to see the benefit to somebody sitting on a green line tram of an interchange at ranelagh instead of the green. You would also find such duplication of service very tough to explain to the money men. Your person in harold's cross could be accomodated by an orbital type bus
route linking into ranelagh and the luas just as easily. Our transport planners, however, have shown no interest in facilitating this.....

As I pointed out in the Cologne and Amsterdam examples, a busy metropolitan route inhales any extra capacity you give it. In any event it's just a short section - from Ranelagh to Stephen's Green - but in terms of linking everything up and more importantantly, giving these passengers a CHOICE of routes, it's rock-solid.

maxheadroom wrote:

II count 3, one of which you never told us about until today. And adding a destination stop won't really help traffic much, will it? So we're down to 2. One of which you just added. My original point about stations on arterial routes into the city stands.....

I told P11 about Rathmines already. But that thread has been buried somewhere in their fora. They obviouly don't want newbies on their site to get ''confused'' or to actually think about 'stuff', as that guy from Canada put it. You are also a member of P11, aren't you? It's kind of ironic that I get banned from P11's forum but end up debating the same things with two of their members, on this forum!!

maxheadroom wrote:

I'm sorry, but what you see as a benefit is what the rest of us see as a critical problem. The interconenctor does pretty much everything your metro will do, with the exception of your loop to rathmines and harold's cross, and also provides an improved service to people on suburban routes. Your solution whizzes people around the centre of Dublin pretty well, but leaves no means to get the people there in the first place.

I've said already, I fully support the electrification of Maynooth and Kildare lines. It's badly needed. What I'm proposing means a passenger coming in from Maynooth or Kildare has a multitude of connection lines and stations to take advantage of. Added to this, I'm bringing metro to hundreds of thousands of new users scattered across the whole of central and suburban Dublin, not just the privileged minority that already lives near a costal or provincial rail line.

maxheadroom

lol @ silverside's "yet"

Metrobest wrote:

It's very easily fixed. You would run short three-carriage metros between Ranelagh and Sandyford. Even a three-carriage metro has much higher capacity than a tram. In the case of Amsterdam, split level works pefectly on the metro 51/Tram 5 route. It's very nice for passengers too: you can take whichever mode arrives first, but in general the metro goes faster. Colonge has a better street-rail system than LUAS. Yes the platforms are long but look at the capacity! The on-street trains duplicate many of Cologne's underground routes (Neumarkt to Nollendorfplatz, for example), which just goes to show, on a busy route (like Ranelagh-Stephen's Green), you just can't have too much capacity.

Again, there's no way you'll get politicians in this country to double up rail modes on one section of the network like this. It would be political suicide given the huge amount of the city with little or no access to rail services. For the forseeable future, ranelagh will be served by luas and nothing else.

Metrobest wrote:

Freightening! So freight is obviously something that's going to be a problem for the interconnector, too, isn't it? At least in my plan you're building a dedicated metro network. So either it can go UG from Heustion, following the alligment of the Park Route, or else build the circle line to the gauge specification of the Park Tunnel. I would have thought very little freight traffic uses the tunnel nowadays - what, one train per day? So if push comes to shove, metro will have to take priority over the odd freight train.

Emm, the interconnector is going to be a dedicated tunnel between heuston and spencer dock. While freight movements might be an issue for the dublin rail plan, I doubt they will be significant, given the fact that there is spare track capacity between the docklands and the cabra / glasnevin junction. IE haven't actually detailed what their plans are for the park tunnel post interconnector (or if they have I haven't seen them anywhere), just that it will be part of the overall rail plan for Dublin. Anyway, if freight volumes are as low as you're making out, the odd freight train zipping through the tunnel won't have a huge effect of commuter trains using the tunnel (or intercity trains being diverted to spencer dock rather than stopping at heuston)

Metrobest

maxheadroom wrote:

IE haven't actually detailed what their plans are for the park tunnel post interconnector (or if they have I haven't seen them anywhere), just that it will be part of the overall rail plan for Dublin. Anyway, if freight volumes are as low as you're making out, the odd freight train zipping through the tunnel won't have a huge effect of commuter trains using the tunnel (or intercity trains being diverted to spencer dock rather than stopping at heuston)

I think that, whatever happens, freight will have to go. There's no way you could have a train loaded with timber or whatnot crawling through a high-capacity tunnel designed for carrying thousands of commuters each hour. The two are incompatible. No trains would be able to come or go while the freight was moving. Just recently I saw I freight train run through Central Station in Amsterdam. I asked somebody how this could be possible, wasn't it very dangerous. But in Amsterdam CS some of the platfroms have three tracks between them instead of the usual two, so the middle line can be used for things like freight. We aren't blessed with such luxuries in Dublin, so the freight will have to find an alternative route, whatever happens.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

I think that, whatever happens, freight will have to go. There's no way you could have a train loaded with timber or whatnot crawling through a high-capacity tunnel designed for carrying thousands of commuters each hour.The two are incompatible. No trains would be able to come or go while the freight was moving

--I take it you STILL don't know what the interconnector is. The intercoonector is a NEW tunnel through the southside of the city. the Park Tunnel is not part of the initial proposal from IE however it must remain 5' 3" gauge to support NATIONAL freight movements in and out of Dublin Port. The Park Tunnel COULD be used for less frequent outer suburban services from the likes of Portlaoise to allow them to terminate at Spencer Dock surface station which is much nearer town than Heuston. This would not be a problem as the very infrequent freight trains already share trackspace with passenger services all over the national rail network and it's perfectly safe. a train is a train whether it's carrying timber or containers or people.

Metrobest wrote:

Just recently I saw I freight train run through Central Station in Amsterdam. I asked somebody how this could be possible, wasn't it very dangerous. But in Amsterdam CS some of the platfroms have three tracks between them instead of the usual two, so the middle line can be used for things like freight

--Whatever.

Metrobest wrote:

We aren't blessed with such luxuries in Dublin, so the freight will have to find an alternative route, whatever happens.

--As has been pointed out to you a hundred times, the Park Tunnel does not form part of the IE Dublin Rail Plan initially. Freight is infrequent but MUST be supported as to sever this link to freight would be the most incredibly short-sighted act of all time. Do you want even more trucks on our roads hauling Coca Cola concentrate from Ballina to Dublin Port and cement from Drogheda to Kildare and the rest of Leinster???

Be sensible in your answer this time because there is no alternative route for freight at the moment.

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

Thanks, but just another thing: could you take away the red line on the the Tallght LUAS. I just want a map that shows the Circle and North/South lines by themselves, a METRO ONLY map. Then it's very easy to see how central and beneficial the new stations are to all arteries into Dublin.

I can't do it without erasing the green line too - I've drawn them both on the same layer. Idealogically, I'd have a problem with not showing current transport links on the map, especially if it to try and make one system look better over another Surely its important to show interactions with current modes?

Metrobest wrote:

As I pointed out in the Cologne and Amsterdam examples, a busy metropolitan route inhales any extra capacity you give it. In any event it's just a short section - from Ranelagh to Stephen's Green - but in terms of linking everything up and more importantantly, giving these passengers a CHOICE of routes, it's rock-solid.

I can kind of agree with your capacity argument, but I can't see it getting built before links to places with no current link.

Metrobest wrote:

I told P11 about Rathmines already. But that thread has been buried somewhere in their fora. They obviouly don't want newbies on their site to get ''confused'' or to actually think about 'stuff', as that guy from Canada put it. You are also a member of P11, aren't you? It's kind of ironic that I get banned from P11's forum but end up debating the same things with two of their members, on this forum!!

Well, I have posted a few replies on P11's boards (about 10 I think) but I'm not a member of P11. Anyway, I can't stand their forum software, and it keeps auto banning me because I use tabs in firefox...

Metrobest wrote:

I've said already, I fully support the electrification of Maynooth and Kildare lines. It's badly needed. What I'm proposing means a passenger coming in from Maynooth or Kildare has a multitude of connection lines and stations to take advantage of. Added to this, I'm bringing metro to hundreds of thousands of new users scattered across the whole of central and suburban Dublin, not just the privileged minority that already lives near a costal or provincial rail line.

You can't have the full electrification and upgrading of the Maynooth and Kildare lines without doing something about the bottleneck in central dublin.

And, I'm sorry, but your metro proposal isn't radically different in terms of catchment area or proposed stops and lines from the dublin rail plan proposal. With the exception of rathmines and harold's cross, every other stop on your lines is either in the dublin rail plan, near a dublin rail plan stop, or on or near a current luas line.

Basically, your plan adresses only half of Dublin's problems, whereas the Dublin Rail Plan address it all.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

--I take it you STILL don't know what the interconnector is. The intercoonector is a NEW tunnel through the southside of the city. the Park Tunnel is not part of the initial proposal from IE however it must remain 5' 3" gauge to support NATIONAL freight movements in and out of Dublin Port. a train is a train whether it's carrying timber or containers or people.[/B]

It's not the same. I have seen frieght trains consisting only of a diesal engine pulling car upon car of timber. It's not the same as a passenger train. The pieces of timber don't sit down on seats, look out the non-existent window or listen to their walkmans or read a book while getting from A to B. A freight train is NOT the same as a passenger train!

So the entire section of Northside track on the map Maxheadroom provided is fictictious, is it? In other words, if the 3.4bn euro Interconnector is built there WON"T be a station at Cabra. This is all very confusing to the average user; I admit I am confused myself. When I think of the Interconnector, I also include the D-Connector in it, but just to be clear: the 3.4bn plan will ONLY include new track between Heuston and Spencer via Stephen's Green, and no movements in the Park Tunnel via Cabra, is that what you're telling us? So in other words the entire Northside section of my Circle and North/South lines is track that would never even exist under Iarnroad's 3.4bn plan. That's insane!

murphaph wrote:

----As has been pointed out to you a hundred times, the Park Tunnel does not form part of the IE Dublin Rail Plan initially. Freight is infrequent but MUST be supported as to sever this link to freight would be the most incredibly short-sighted act of all time. Do you want even more trucks on our roads hauling Coca Cola concentrate from Ballina to Dublin Port and cement from Drogheda to Kildare and the rest of Leinster?? [/B]

As far as I'm aware, we built the Port Tunnel - the most expensive piece of infrastructure ever built in Ireland - to solve the HGV problem. In any event IE has snipped back its freight operations to a skeleton service, in common with most rail operators in Europe. The geography of Ireland's rail network is such that rail freight is not very viable for 99 pecent of things. So taking away the remaining 1 percent isn't going to make much difference now, is it?

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

So the entire section of Northside track on the map Maxheadroom provided is fictictious, is it? In other words, if the 3.4bn euro Interconnector is built there WON"T be a station at Cabra. This is all very confusing to the average user; I admit I am confused myself. When I think of the Interconnector, I also include the D-Connector in it, but just to be clear: the 3.4bn plan will ONLY include new track between Heuston and Spencer via Stephen's Green, and no movements in the Park Tunnel via Cabra, is that what you're telling us? So in other words the entire Northside section of my Circle and North/South lines is track that would never even exist under Iarnroad's 3.4bn plan. That's insane!

I agree, it is a bit weird. There doesn't seem to be any actual documentation about what's going to happen with the section of track from the phoenix park tunnel to glasnevin junction. However, I did get someone from P11 (he posts here under the name p11 comms) to confirm the map was an accurate depiction of what's going to happen post interconnector.

AFAIK, the new track is already laid along the phoenix park tunnel route, right along to spencer dock. It wouldn't make any sense to ignore it, its already been upgraded, and is ready for electrification (the track bed has been lowered where necessary).

The main problem is that the main information on the DRP proposal comes form the presentation given by IE to that government committee. This was, IIRC, before the d-connector was on the agenda.

But, some clarification from those in the know whould be nice

EDIT: I've posted a question over on P11's forum, hopefully someone with more info on the rail plan will provide an answer.

Metrobest

maxheadroom wrote:

I agree, it is a bit weird. There doesn't seem to be any actual documentation about what's going to happen with the section of track from the phoenix park tunnel to glasnevin junction. However, I did get someone from P11 (he posts here under the name p11 comms) to confirm the map was an accurate depiction of what's going to happen post interconnector.

AFAIK, the new track is already laid along the phoenix park tunnel route, right along to spencer dock. It wouldn't make any sense to ignore it, its already been upgraded, and is ready for electrification (the track bed has been lowered where necessary).

The main problem is that the main information on the DRP proposal comes form the presentation given by IE to that government committee. This was, IIRC, before the d-connector was on the agenda.

But, some clarification from those in the know whould be nice

EDIT: I've posted a question over on P11's forum, hopefully someone with more info on the rail plan will provide an answer.

In relation to the maps, Maxheadroom, it would be great if you could produce three maps as follows:
A stand-alone metro map showing the Central Dublin Metro
A map showing Metro and LUAS
A map showing Metro, LUAS, DART, Maynooth and Kildare together.

In relation to P11 Comms, he is named Thomas. This is the person who told me I was 'welcome' to continue posting comments on the P11 fora; an hour later I was quietly banned and all my comments buried deep in the fora where nobody is likely to come across them. The relevent thread is called ''Metro and Interconnector - Can't we have both'' but my computer will not allow me to access this thread; perhaps yours does, or have they blocked EVERYBODY from reading it?

Also I notice on P11's site they have removed something else from their archives: this was a proposal P11 made to the Oireachtas Committee on transport, I think in March 2003. When I read the word-for-word text of this meeting, I was startled by the sheer lack of knowledge of the politicians who make decisions on transport in Ireland. During the course of that meeting the politicians decided they would take a trip to Connolly station to see how the loop line actually works!! Amazing they didn't know already! And these are the people who could end up sanctioning the 3.4bn Interconnector that it appears will not even serve the Northside section of the route: the only new section being heuston to Stephen's Green.

The thing is, you've got the D-Connector, the Interconnector, the Strategic Rail Review, the Dublin Rail plan, the RPA, the DTO, Iarnroad Eireann, P11, the government, My plans, the LUAS and goodness knows what else. It's no wonder people are confused!!

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

In relation to the maps, Maxheadroom, it would be great if you could produce three maps as follows:
A stand-alone metro map showing the Central Dublin Metro
A map showing Metro and LUAS
A map showing Metro, LUAS, DART, Maynooth and Kildare together.

http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/railmap-metrobest-m.jpg
http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/railmap-metrobest-ml.jpg
http://matrix.netsoc.tcd.ie/~maxhead/railmap-metrobest-mlr.jpg

Metrobest wrote:

The relevent thread is called ''Metro and Interconnector - Can't we have both'' but my computer will not allow me to access this thread; perhaps yours does, or have they blocked EVERYBODY from reading it?

I can't find the thread or any posts made by you. Did you register with an email address or did you just type your username in when replying?

I'm more inclined to blame this on their awful forum software than on any malicious intent though.

Metrobest wrote:

Also I notice on P11's site they have removed something else from their archives: this was a proposal P11 made to the Oireachtas Committee on transport, I think in March 2003. When I read the word-for-word text of this meeting, I was startled by the sheer lack of knowledge of the politicians who make decisions on transport in Ireland. During the course of that meeting the politicians decided they would take a trip to Connolly station to see how the loop line actually works!! Amazing they didn't know already!

Luckily, p11.org is archived by the wayback machine. I tried looking through it, but I don't really know what article I'm looking for. Maybe you'll have better luck. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.platform11.org/

Metrobest wrote:

And these are the people who could end up sanctioning the 3.4bn Interconnector that it appears will not even serve the Northside section of the route: the only new section being heuston to Stephen's Green.

Now, to be fair, even if the park tunnel isn't used, its the western edge of the circle that will be taken out, not the northern bit. You lose the shortcut between cabra and heuston, and get a c-ring instead of a circle line. It would be regrettable, but not critical.

Metrobest wrote:

The thing is, you've got the D-Connector, the Interconnector, the Strategic Rail Review, the Dublin Rail plan, the RPA, the DTO, Iarnroad Eireann, P11, the government, My plans, the LUAS and goodness knows what else. It's no wonder people are confused!!

I suspect this is why P11 decided to - ahem - refocus their forums (forums? fora?). Its a pity their software wasn't up to the task.

Metrobest

maxheadroom wrote:

I can't find the thread or any posts made by you. Did you register with an email address or did you just type your username in when replying? I'm more inclined to blame this on their awful forum software than on any malicious intent though. Luckily, p11.org is archived by the wayback machine. I tried looking through it, but I don't really know what article I'm looking for. Maybe you'll have better luck. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.platform11.org/.

Sorry to be pernikity about the maps, but on the Metro/Luas map and Metro/LUAS/Heavy Rail map, could you make both the LUAS lines green; it kinda looks like the Tallaght LUAS is part of the CDM, which is isn't. That way you can see the differences between each mode, and how they connect therewith.

The posts I made on the Dublin Metro forum they have planted into a fourm called Rail Transport in Ireland, Present and Future. My contributions about the Amsterdam Metro and My CDM are on page 2; my most pertinent contributions were on the thread on page 3, ''Interconnector or Metro..Why can't we have both?'', started by Steve 2004.

maxheadroom wrote:

Now, to be fair, even if the park tunnel isn't used, its the western edge of the circle that will be taken out, not the northern bit. You lose the shortcut between cabra and heuston, and get a c-ring instead of a circle line. It would be regrettable, but not critical. I suspect this is why P11 decided to - ahem - refocus their forums (forums? fora?). Its a pity their software wasn't up to the task.

But you'd lose Cabra station, and either way, trains through the Tunnel would be going to Spencer, not Connolly. The CDM goes straight to Connolly. Spencer is not part of my plan at all; my feeling is that the LUAS is sufficient for Spencer's long term needs. The plural of forum is fora, BTW, :eek:

Metrobest

The other thing is, I can't find the archive piece on that link you supplied. The piece was titled along the lines of: ''Platform 11's submission to the Oireachtas sub-committee on transport''. I think I also mentioned this piece in the thread: ''Interconnector or Metro, can't we have both'' - the thread my computer won't allow me access to!

The Oireachtas submission there on their archive pages about 2 weeks ago when I read it word-for-word; odd that is has disappeared

silverside

(Am I allowed join in :P )

I think the interconnector is a good idea, but don't see where you are getting the figure of 3.4 Billion from. I think IE mentioned a construction cost of around 1.3 Billion, the rest being costs of new rolling stock etc that they would probably buy anyway.

I think the significant things the Interconnector plan doesnt give are:

* good access to the NW of the city (Airport, swords, along with finglas, cabra, mulhuddart)
* integration/upgrading of the luas
* potential for easy access between say finglas and clondalkin in the longer term.

It looks like the interconnector and quad trackingwould have a better immediate effect on congestion. In the medium term it wouldnt rule out the original dto plan of bringing the luas underground at Ranelagh, out via broadstone to the airport, which would allow for interchanges at stephens green (Interconnector), abbey street (LUAS), Liffey Junction (Maynooth line).

In the longer term the metro could be extended to tempelogue, kimmage, clondalkin, etc.

I know this is parroting the DTO plan a bit but I don't see why the government can't start it now, and borrow the money over 30 or 40 years.

I don't think a spur to the airport would really be worthwhile since it would only serve the airport and not commuters. When the port tunnel is finished you can run express buses to the busarus/spencer dock area quickly anyway.