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

maxheadroom

Where the wayback machine has failed, the google cache has prevailed:

Joint Committee on Transport.
Tuesday, 15 April 2003.
http://www.irlgov.ie/oireachtas/Committees-29th-D%E1il/jct-debates/jct150403.rtf

the section that metrobest was talking about is this:

Senator Morrissey: I propose that we go to Connolly Station for an hour to look at its operational management.

Chairman: Iarnród Éireann would have to be involved.

Senator Morrissey: I have gone there and spoken to drivers. We do not need Iarnród Éireann.

Chairman: With all due respect, we could do that but what is the point if we are just going to talk about it ourselves afterwards?

Senator Morrissey: We then validate what was said by the gentlemen appearing before us.

Senator Dooley: I second the proposal.

Chairman: We cannot validate it. The responsibility for implementation lies with Iarnród Éireann. It has to be convinced as to whether what is being said is true.

Senator Morrissey: With all due respect, if we are thinking of going to Madrid we can surely get as far as Connolly Station.

Senator Dooley: I second the Chairman's proposal in regard to the two groups.

Chairman: If Senator Morrissey does not mind me saying so, what does that have to do with it?

Senator Morrissey: Connolly Station is a mile down the road.

Chairman: We can go there but there is no use going there if Iarnród Éireann is not involved.

murphaph

silverside wrote:

(Am I allowed join in :P )

--The more the merrier I say!

silverside wrote:

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.

--App. 1.2Bn for the tunnel alone. the rest of the 3.4Bn comes from quad tracking the Northern Line, adding a spur to the airport, electrification of the Maynooth, Kildare and Drogheda lines.

silverside wrote:

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.

--The Dublin Rail Plan by CIE does include a spur to the airport. Cabra would get a new station at Glasnevin Junction and at the old cement works that's up for sale by CIE property right now. Mulhuddart will have to be served by bus feeders to Clonsilla. Swords is not on any current plans by either the RPA or CIE but it should be.

silverside wrote:

It looks like the interconnector and quad tracking would 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)

.
--I wouldn't rule this out either. It could be the sensible thing to do however if they go to the expense of tunneling to Broadstone I'd like to see metro vehicles introduced, unfortunately because of the gauge of Luas these won't be DARTs unless we relay the section from Ranelagh to Sandyford to the Irish gauge and I can't see that happening now.

silverside wrote:

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

--I'd prefer to see a massive DART expansion take this role on but I know what you mean.

silverside wrote:

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.

--Short sightedness probably. Lack of vision. Take your pick. It's sad.

silverside wrote:

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.

--The spur could be built quickly though and it could easily be extended to Swords to serve commuters. I think any airport link should HAVE TO serve Swords as a condition of construction. They're right beside each other!

@metrobest
If you continue to make stupid remarks like permanently removing freight from Irish Rail I can't take you seriously anymore. Have you any idea how much bulk cement would end up on the M50 because of your idiotic ideas?

silverside

what is the difference between metro/luas gauge and dart/heavy rail gauge (apart from the obvious) ?

Isn't the current luas gauge the same as what some other countries use for their trains?

Isn't it only a couple of inches in the difference, surely this wouldn't make a lot of difference to capacity of the trains?

Metrobest

Philip, I have no idea how much cement would need to go on the M50. Not too much, I imagine, since there is very little movement of freight through the Park Tunnel presently. What is your estimate, please? In any event such traffic movement would likely take place early in mornings or very late at night.

Once the M50 goes three-lane it will be well able to handle any extra HGVs on the roads from the closure of the Park Tunnel. We built the Port Tunnel specifically to handle HGV traffic, didn't we?

murphaph

silverside wrote:

what is the difference between metro/luas gauge and dart/heavy rail gauge (apart from the obvious) ?

--DART/Heavy Rail is 5' 3". Luas/RPAmetro is 4' 8.5". It's completely incompatible.

silverside wrote:

Isn't the current luas gauge the same as what some other countries use for their trains?

--Yes, Britain and Europe use a 4' 8.5" track gauge for (virtually) all their rail transport, Heavy, LRT and metro. This is why we're stuck with Luas as it is-off the shelf trams from Alstom in France.

silverside wrote:

Isn't it only a couple of inches in the difference, surely this wouldn't make a lot of difference to capacity of the trains?

--It would make virtually no difference to capacity. The problem is one of integration. The two systems are incompatible so cannot share track. This drastically reduces your 0 change route options. The route options for more than 0 changes are unaffected so long as the modes have interchange stations however this means forcing passengers to change between modes purely because their first train is incapable of 'turning onto the track' their second train takes because one is wider/narrower than the other. It's less messy with 1 gauge. That is principally why I am all for metro in the form of a DART extension with underground running where necessary.

Hope this clears some stuf up for ya.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Philip, I have no idea how much cement would need to go on the M50. Not too much, I imagine, since there is very little movement of freight through the Park Tunnel presently. What is your estimate, please? In any event such traffic movement would likely take place early in mornings or very late at night.

Once the M50 goes three-lane it will be well able to handle any extra HGVs on the roads from the closure of the Park Tunnel. We built the Port Tunnel specifically to handle HGV traffic, didn't we?

--Oh you're really serious from removing freight from the network. Oh dear. This is a new low. Metrobest is in favour of MORE HGVs, but it's ok, we can just keep building more roads just like the Port Tunnel. Man, you think a 3 lane M50 in 2 years will be less congested than a 2 lane M50 today? You've ZERO idea about traffic growth.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

--Oh you're really serious from removing freight from the network. Oh dear. This is a new low. Metrobest is in favour of MORE HGVs, but it's ok, we can just keep building more roads just like the Port Tunnel. Man, you think a 3 lane M50 in 2 years will be less congested than a 2 lane M50 today? You've ZERO idea about traffic growth.

Let's look at a case study. I travelled on the Autobahn from Amersfoort in the Netherlands to Hannover in Germany a few weeks ago. This used to be a very congested road, two-laned, just like the M50. A few years ago it was widened to three lanes and, voilla, traffic moves freely; now you can drive at 130kmph no problem. Journey times have been halved.

I noticed that the slow lane consists almost entirely of HGVs. The M50 does not and will not ever have the quanity of HGVs that you see on the Authobahns in Germany. Thus widening the M50 will eliminate the congestion.

So I am in favour of more HGVs on roads that can cope with them. A widened M50 could easily cope, and HGVs can use it to get to the Port Tunnel, a tunnel designed specifically FOR HGVs. In the case of Ireland I don't think rail is the best way to get goods from A to B. Good roads are. And CIE seems to agree, having axed most of its freight business.

murphaph

I deal in facts. You deal with broad generalisations and impossible predictions and are content to forever remove any possibility of expanding Railfreight in ireland for the sake of your awful oblong line. CIE axed unprofitable unit loads from the network but the Norfolk Liner is a classic example of new businees that can be developed to remove HGVs from our roads.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

I deal in facts. You deal with broad generalisations and impossible predictions and are content to forever remove any possibility of expanding Railfreight in ireland for the sake of your awful oblong line. CIE axed unprofitable unit loads from the network but the Norfolk Liner is a classic example of new businees that can be developed to remove HGVs from our roads.

If you deal in facts please tell me approximately how much freight goes through the Park Tunnel each day. And what percentage of total HGV traffic that freight movement represents.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

If you deal in facts please tell me approximately how much freight goes through the Park Tunnel each day. And what percentage of total HGV traffic that freight movement represents.

I don't know, but unlike you, I won't just make up figures. I do know that to permanently sever the line to Freight by building your metro through the Park tunnel is a joke. You want to permanently remove any possibility of expanding rail freight in Ireland. Idiotic.

I hope I'm not the only person reading this board who thinks that this is incredibly short-sighted.

Once you say something and you are corrected, don't feel obliged to steamroll your ideas through just to save face. The Park Tunnel is not up for your metro grabs. It has to remain heavy rail and that's the end of it. There are going to be increasing movements through that tunnel for trains heading to and from Inchicore for maintenance etc. You cannot build your metro through it.

John R

Metrobest wrote:

Philip, I have no idea how much cement would need to go on the M50. Not too much, I imagine, since there is very little movement of freight through the Park Tunnel presently. What is your estimate, please? In any event such traffic movement would likely take place early in mornings or very late at night.

Once the M50 goes three-lane it will be well able to handle any extra HGVs on the roads from the closure of the Park Tunnel. We built the Port Tunnel specifically to handle HGV traffic, didn't we?

That line is not going to be cut off from the national rail network as it is the only connection between Incicore Works and the Belfast, Rosslare and Sligo corridors. As well as being used for freight it is necessary for stock transfers.

It is obvious (it has been since page one of this pointless discourse) that you are ignorant about the most basic facts of the topic and you only started this thread here because you were booted off the P11 messageboard.

Victor

Metrobest wrote:

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.

Specifically it isn't compatible, although it is designed to be upgradeable to Metro standard.

Metrobest wrote:

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

If you are really worried, do a Freedom of Information Act request through the Oireachtas.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

I don't know, but unlike you, I won't just make up figures. I do know that to permanently sever the line to Freight by building your metro through the Park tunnel is a joke. You want to permanently remove any possibility of expanding rail freight in Ireland. Idiotic. Once you say something and you are corrected, don't feel obliged to steamroll your ideas through just to save face. The Park Tunnel is not up for your metro grabs. It has to remain heavy rail and that's the end of it. There are going to be increasing movements through that tunnel for trains heading to and from Inchicore for maintenance etc. You cannot build your metro through it.

You're choosing to mis-represent what I wrote. I said rebuilding the gauge was ONE option. The other was to build the Circle Line in addtion to the existing line. And another perfectly do-able option is to build the Circle Line metro to 5.3 gauge, compatable with the Tunnel. The North/South Line can be 4.8 gauge, compatable with the Sandyford Line if it was decided to run metros on this stretch also.

Metrobest

John R wrote:

It is obvious (it has been since page one of this pointless discourse) that you are ignorant about the most basic facts of the topic and you only started this thread here because you were booted off the P11 messageboard.

What's your point, exactly? P11 didn't want to debate the facts with me, so I was quietly brushed aside. Now the irony is that P11 members - of whom I can count at least five - are on this here forum debating with the person they were glad to have banned from their own forum! How odd.

And during this thread we've uncovered some important facts about the Interconnector that you won't see being discussed on P11's censored message fora. Namely: Maynooth-Clontarf requiring a change in Pearse, not Connolly; or Howth-Heuston trains not stopping in Connolly or Tara, two of the most central stations.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

another perfectly do-able option is to build the Circle Line metro to 5.3 gauge

-That's called a DART extension!

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

-That's called a DART extension!

Big difference: no level crossings, most of the line is underground, any diesel traffic could be restricted to movements between 12am-5am during which time there would be no metros running. And anyway, I thought you were telling us the DART was a metro, or have you changed your tune now?

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

And during this thread we've uncovered some important facts about the Interconnector that you won't see being discussed on P11's censored message fora. Namely: Maynooth-Clontarf requiring a change in Pearse, not Connolly; or Howth-Heuston trains not stopping in Connolly or Tara, two of the most central stations.

--Maynooth Clontarf will require a change at Pearse initially. I don't see this as a problem as Pearse is an extra 2 minutes transit time. Add in another 3 minutes to reach the underground platforms and the other 2 minutes back to Spencer Dock and on to Clontarf etc. and that's an extra 7 minutes. This is hardly a big problem considering you now get a possible 16 trains per hour over the loop line which means a very frequent service in both directions, far superior frequency to the 2 trains per hour to Pearse that the Maynooth line currently 'enjoys' at peak time.

--Airport/Howth-Heuston and Drogheda-Kildare trains will instead of bringing passengers to Connolly and Tara, bring them to North Kildare, much of west Dublin, Heuston station, Christchurch, St. Stephen's Green and let's not forget the BIGGEST office development in irish history at Spencer Dock (www.spencerdock.ie). Your proposal does not serve Spencer Dock at all and it could actually be one of the busiest stations on the network by 2010! The Spencer Dock station also allows these passengers to connect to frequent Luas trams running from the Point-Connolly-O'Connell Street etc. Change is not necessarily a bad thing.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Big difference: no level crossings, most of the line is underground, any diesel traffic could be restricted to movements between 12am-5am during which time there would be no metros running. And anyway, I thought you were telling us the DART was a metro, or have you changed your tune now?

--Irony mate. They have that in Amsterdam too, right?

Part of the Dublin Rail Plan eliminates a large number of level crossings that currently exist on the network and only ones in rural areas will remain. These are not a problem as they will all be automated (most are now anyway) and in any case-lot's of 'metros' have level crossings. Underground/Overground-makes no difference-it's the frequency of service that determines if it's a metro and you've been told that a number of times already. A frequently running DART is a metro. Simple as.

John R

Metrobest wrote:

What's your point, exactly? P11 didn't want to debate the facts with me, so I was quietly brushed aside. Now the irony is that P11 members - of whom I can count at least five - are on this here forum debating with the person they were glad to have banned from their own forum! How odd.

And during this thread we've uncovered some important facts about the Interconnector that you won't see being discussed on P11's censored message fora. Namely: Maynooth-Clontarf requiring a change in Pearse, not Connolly; or Howth-Heuston trains not stopping in Connolly or Tara, two of the most central stations.

You are a world class muppet aren't you.
All of those things that you have "uncovered" are obvious from a 30 second glance at one of the maps of the plan.

Five P11 members here! The invasion has begun.
I am not even sure that P11 has five members, they are very secretive you know.
Hint: that's another thing you should put in your "conspiracy" file.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

--Maynooth Clontarf will require a change at Pearse initially. I don't see this as a problem as Pearse is an extra 2 minutes transit time. Add in another 3 minutes to reach the underground platforms and the other 2 minutes back to Spencer Dock and on to Clontarf etc. and that's an extra 7 minutes. This is hardly a big problem considering you now get a possible 16 trains per hour over the loop line which means a very frequent service in both directions, far superior frequency to the 2 trains per hour to Pearse that the Maynooth line currently 'enjoys' at peak time..

I checked the IE website. Currently 6 trains per hour run at peak times between Clontarf Road and Connolly. From Howth Junction that figure rises to 7. The DART upgrade is being focused on lengthening carriages, not making trains more frequent. In any case this line is constrained by diesel-powered enterprise and Arrow. For an extra couple of trains per hour during peak times, do you think people will really want to spend an extra minimum of ten minutes enduring the hassle of changing at Pearse, south of the Liffey, to get back to Connolly on the Northside, when they current enjoy a direct connection, 6/7 times per hour, to this central hub?

BTW, between 8am and 8.39am, there are three trains between Castleknock and Pearse. Not to say this is good; it needs a huge improvement, but your figure of two per hour was a tad misleading.

murphaph wrote:

----Airport/Howth-Heuston and Drogheda-Kildare trains will instead of bringing passengers to Connolly and Tara, bring them to North Kildare, much of west Dublin, Heuston station, Christchurch, St. Stephen's Green and let's not forget Spencer Dock .

No point increasing frequency if the train is not going where people want. The bottom line is, people still will want to go to Tara and Pearse. The Interconnector makes that a more complicated journey. There's no point talking up Spencer Dock. That's a new development. You're forgetting about the tens of thousands of people who work near Connolly and Tara. My proposal keeps the Northside DART exactly as it is; but gives the passengers a chance to change for the Metro at Connolly, opening up several more possibilities.

And have you thought about the Tallaght LUAS? These passengers will have to endure several more minutes on the on-street tram to get to Spencer to make connections to the North-bound trains. That's unacceptable. The supreme irony is that the LUAS will glide into the terminus at Connolly, but most passengers will have to remain seated, frustrated that they can't get on the North-bound line at Connolly.

Connolly is a huge hub station for transport in Dublin, but the interconnector will actually reduce the amount of destinations Connollly serves. Again: unacceptable.

silverside

My take on this is:
Connolly can't cope with much extra load.

So to get more people into the city centre by rail, we need either another eastern loop (Spencer Dock), or an underground cross-city tunnel (crossing the city anywhere between the IFSC and the four courts).

I don't think not getting to connolly will be a huge imposition for most people, particularly if that means a big increase in frequency. Getting to an interchange station at stephen's green, at spencer dock, drumcondra, liffey junction, wherever would do fine, *IF* ongoing connections are frequent enough. Connolly is on the fringe of the CBD, not central to it.

I don't like the RPA-bashing on the platform 11 website, but I think a cut-down airport-only-metro (or indeed a branch via howth junction) isn't a good idea. If we're going to do it, we should do it right, and that means putting in the framework for a city metro network. If the powers-that-be decide to put that on hold for a few years while the interconnector gets built, fair enough.

I don't think metrobest's rectangle-circle-inner-city loop is thought out, nor has it any big advantages over the interconnector loop. I do think a proper metro to serve the areas not currently anywhere near a rail station (such as tallaght, finglas, swords, tempelogue, crumlin) should be built and need not be too expensive if we follow the Madrid example. I think trying to branch *everything* off the current DART network is not really workable. I don't think people really mind 5 or 6 minutes interchange time at stations - it takes that long to walk from the quays to the platforms at connolly/tara as it is.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

I checked the IE website. Currently 6 trains per hour run at peak times between Clontarf Road and Connolly. From Howth Junction that figure rises to 7. The DART upgrade is being focused on lengthening carriages, not making trains more frequent.

--DART upgrade has nothing to do with the Dublin Rail Plan. It's a short term measure by IE to increase a packed network's capacity a bit more.

Metrobest wrote:

In any case this line is constrained by diesel-powered enterprise and Arrow.

--How many times do you have to be told that the Dublin Rail Plan will widen the Northern Line to 4 tracks, seperating DART from Intercity/Outer Suburban (Arrow) for good.

Metrobest wrote:

For an extra couple of trains per hour during peak times, do you think people will really want to spend an extra minimum of ten minutes enduring the hassle of changing at Pearse, south of the Liffey, to get back to Connolly on the Northside, when they current enjoy a direct connection, 6/7 times per hour, to this central hub?

--Like I said in my last post, the DTO have indicated a transfer ststion at East Wall Junction (where the Maynooth Line joins the Northern Line, a few hundered metres north of Connolly. This is perfectly possible and would be a good addition to the Dublin Rail Plan. This is NOT included in the initial proposal but could be added easily as no digging or tunneling is required.

Metrobest wrote:

BTW, between 8am and 8.39am, there are three trains between Castleknock and Pearse. Not to say this is good; it needs a huge improvement, but your figure of two per hour was a tad misleading.

--Ok, 3 trains at peak times. Did you look at the off peak service? No? well, to make sure I can't be accused of innacuracy; There are 19 direct trains a DAY from Clonsilla to Pearse. That's in a 15hr 17min period on a weekday with first train at 06:49 and last train at 22:08. Pathetic service whatever way you look at it. This would be replaced by 122 trains in that same period when running just 8 trains per hour. The loop line could take 16 trains per hour and these will all be dedicated to the Maynooth-Bray service. At 16 trains per hour we would see 224 trains in the same period! 224 trains a day is a capacity of at least 350,000 on just one line in one direction!!

Metrobest wrote:

No point increasing frequency if the train is not going where people want. The bottom line is, people still will want to go to Tara and Pearse. The Interconnector makes that a more complicated journey.

--Have you been listenning? The interconnector means ALL DART LINES RUN THROUGH PEARSE!!!!!

Metrobest wrote:

And have you thought about the Tallaght LUAS? These passengers will have to endure several more minutes on the on-street tram to get to Spencer to make connections to the North-bound trains. That's unacceptable. The supreme irony is that the LUAS will glide into the terminus at Connolly, but most passengers will have to remain seated, frustrated that they can't get on the North-bound line at Connolly.

--I've thought about Tallaght Luas a lot more than you by the looks of that statement. If one is travelling from Tallaght on Luas one would disembark at HEUSTON not CONNOLLY, to submerge into the interconnector tunnel station at HEUSTON and take a DART direct to all north-bound destinations right out as far as Drogheda!

Metrobest wrote:

Connolly is a huge hub station for transport in Dublin, but the interconnector will actually reduce the amount of destinations Connollly serves. Again: unacceptable.

--For Heaven's sake, Connolly is creaking at the seams it is so strained! It needs a bypass and that's what the interconnector does. Connolly doesn't have to remain static you know-things can change. To be perfectly honest as mentioned above, Connolly is between the IFSC and O'Connell street in a bit of a no-man's land. I hate when trains from Clonsilla terminate there and I know most people agree with me, right??

--Edited to remove 'near' obscenities.

Victor

Tone it down.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote:

--How many times do you have to be told that the Dublin Rail Plan will widen the Northern Line to 4 tracks, seperating DART from Intercity/Outer Suburban (Arrow) for good..

Is that included in the 3.4bn plan?

murphaph wrote:

--Like I said in my last post, the DTO have indicated a transfer ststion at East Wall Junction (where the Maynooth Line joins the Northern Line, a few hundered metres north of Connolly. This is perfectly possible and would be a good addition to the Dublin Rail Plan. This is NOT included in the initial proposal but could be added easily as no digging or tunneling is required..

As you said, that's not included in the 3.4bn plan. PLease let's stick to what the 3.4bn euro plan includes.

murphaph wrote:

--This would be replaced by 122 trains in that same period when running just 8 trains per hour. The loop line could take 16 trains per hour and these will all be dedicated to the Maynooth-Bray service. At 16 trains per hour we would see 224 trains in the same period! 224 trains a day is a capacity of at least 350,000 on just one line in one direction!! .

A theoretical capacity. 224 trains a day from Clonsilla to Pearse is a pipe dream that will never happen.

murphaph wrote:

--Have you been listenning? The interconnector means ALL DART LINES RUN THROUGH PEARSE!!!!!.

I meant to write 'Connolly' not Pearse. That should have been apparant from the thrust of my post.

murphaph wrote:

--I've thought about Tallaght Luas a lot more than you by the looks of that statement. If one is travelling from Tallaght on Luas one would disembark at HEUSTON not CONNOLLY, to submerge into the interconnector tunnel station at HEUSTON and take a DART direct to all north-bound destinations right out as far as Drogheda! .

I'm talking about people coming from Jervis, Fourcourts etc. The whole point of spending milllions demolishing the ramp at Connolly was to make the station into a transfer point for DART passengers. But as you admit, passengers won't be able to get on a Northbound train. So fat lot of good the link to Connolly will do.

murphaph wrote:

--For Heaven's sake, Connolly is creaking at the seams it is so strained! It needs a bypass and that's what the interconnector does. Connolly doesn't have to remain static you know-things can change

Connolly is the largest central DART station we have. It has seven platforms; the huge foyer was built to cope with large loads of passengers.

Pearse, on the other hand, has a tiny foyer and is very cramped already. The Interconnector station would be located in the carpark one level down from the existing station, and I am not aware of any plan to rebuild Pearse in its entirety, are you? Therefore sending passengers from Maynooth-Connolly and Howth-Connolly to Pearse for a change of train in in the direction they came from is a big mistake. This tiny station can't cope.

You think Connolly is creaking! Wait till you see Pearse under the Interconnector! Mayhem. Have you seen the queues at Pearse just to get down the platform escalator to exit the station during peak time? Under your plan you're talking about a theoretical 400 people per minute (1000 per train, trains every five minutes in each direction..) exiting or entering Pearse station or making a connection to the Interconnector platform. Added to this is the Arrow passengers from Gorey and Arklow whose trains would terminate here. This tiny station cannot cope with such numbers. Your plan will send thouands of Connolly-bound passengers into Pearse's tiny station, forcing these passengers into a change of trains they should not have to make in the first place as they currently enjoy a direct connection.

As for your point about Northside DART and Maynooth passengers being delighted to have more a more frequent service in exchange for changing trains in Pearse, I am sceptical. Look at these figures taken from Iarnroad's timetable.

The current timetable shows that Raheny-Connolly is a 12 minute journey. From Connolly to Pearse takes an additional 7 minutes. So let's do the maths:
RAHENY-CONNOLLY (Current situation)
12 minute journey, direct connection. 6 trains per hour.
POST-INTERCONNECTOR
*12 trains per hour (in theory)
*+7 minutes getting to Pearse via Spencer Dock
*+3 minutes from Interconnector platfrom to loop line platform
*+7 minutes journey loop line platform back to Connolly
*+1-5 minutes time waiting for connection
In other words, a journey that currently takes 12 minutes could easily take 34 minutes if the Interconnector is given the go-ahead. And that's a conservative estimate, assuming that the connection has no hiccups whatsoever. And this being Ireland, you can't assume that!

From Clontarf Road-Connolly the picture is even more shocking. A journey that should take four minutes will take 26 minutes post-Interconnector.

There will no longer be a Northside DART connection at Connolly for passengers on the Maynooth line. So what will this mean for a passenger travelling Castleknock-Clontarf Road (loads of people working in Eastpoint do this journey every day..)? Let's see..
CURRENT SITUATION
Dep Castleknock 8.00 Arr Connolly platform6 @ 8.20.
Dep Connoly platform 7 8.27 Arr Clontarf Road @ 8.31
*Platforms 6 and 7 are located on the same island: you have to walk about six metres to make the connection.
Total journey time: 31 mins
POST-INTERCONNECTOR
*+ 7 mins going from Connolly-Pearse
*+ 3 mins getting to Interconnector platform to get connecting train.
*+ 1-5 mins waiting time for Northbound connection
*+ 11 mins journey time from Pearse-Clontarf Road
Total journey time: 42-47 minutes. (conservative estimate)

Whatever way you like to spin it, the Interconnector means longer journey times, more hassle, for passengers on the Maynooth line who want to take a North-bound train, and for passengers Drogheda-Southbound who want to get off at Connolly or Tara.

murphaph wrote:

--To be perfectly honest as mentioned above, Connolly is between the IFSC and O'Connell street in a bit of a no-man's land. I hate when trains from Clonsilla terminate there and I know most people agree with me, right?? .

I sympathise with your viewpoint that Connolly is an annoying station for Maynooth trains to terminate in. But for tens and thousand of passengers, Connolly is the best station. Thousands of people who work in the IFSC use it. If you're going to O'Connel Street, Parnell Street, The Quays, Henry Street, Jervis Street, Mary Street, Moore Street, Eden Quay, Busaras, and many more, Connolly or Tara are by far the best stations to get off at.

Under the Interconnector passengers are forced to choose between Spencer Dock or Pearse, (neither are suitable) or else endure many extra minutes making a connection at the already-congested Pearse to get back to Connolly. That is not an acceptable situation in a plan that costs 3.4bn euros and delivers so little.

GerardKeating

murphaph wrote:

--How many times do you have to be told that the Dublin Rail Plan will widen the Northern Line to 4 tracks, seperating DART from Intercity/Outer Suburban (Arrow) for good.

Quad-tracking the "Northern line" will required all stations north of Connolly to be re-built. This will never happen The line is being closed every weekend for the next year or so for the current DART upgrade, Quad-tracking will mean that most all of this work is wasted and will have to be re-done.

The interconnector would make a lot more sense if it went to Connolly instead of Spenser Dock..

murphaph

I'm going to bow out of this debate now. I know metrobest will have the last word anyway and I'm tired of correcting his mistakes. It's been fun though so thanks.

The one thing I will say in relation tou your point about asking me to stick to the 3.4Bn plan..................eh, I'm talking about the addition of ONE surface station at modest cost...........your entire thread is based on a fictional plan, dreamed up in your bedroom with no costings whatsoever (CIE actually know what they propose will cost 3.4Bn, you just guess your figures).

Maybe somebody else has more patience (and time) than me.

I'd like to declare that I have applied for full membership of Platform11 in the last couple of days. I believe in putting my money (and shoe leather) where my mouth is. €60 annual membership and I'll be handing out fliers and doing my best to get the message out there. You sit in Amsterdam and type-I've got work to do. Not much time before the government make that decision!

maxheadroom

GerardKeating wrote:

Quad-tracking the "Northern line" will required all stations north of Connolly to be re-built. This will never happen The line is being closed every weekend for the next year or so for the current DART upgrade, Quad-tracking will mean that most all of this work is wasted and will have to be re-done.

Why? The two "express" tracks will have no need to go anywhere near the platforms at the northern commuter stations.

GerardKeating wrote:

The interconnector would make a lot more sense if it went to Connolly instead of Spenser Dock..

The whole point of this plan is to reduce pressure in central dublin. Connoly is a huge part of that problem. Building the interconnector to connoly would compound the pressure on the station, not relieve it.

I am also tired of this neverending debate with metrobest. Basically, as I see it, he has a completely fictional plan with imaginary costings that does more or less the same thing as the dublin rail plan. Our discussions are going around in circles. He also doesn't seem to be willing to accept the realities of the situation, with regards current capacities, current constraints, possible benefits of the opposing plan, etc.

It is also important to remember that, as great as this debate was, the two plans going forward for funding are the dublin rail plan (including the interconnector) and the single line RPA airport metro. We can all sit here and draw our version of the ideal metro on a map, but that's not really conduicive to getting the problem solved. There are only two options on the table, and I urge everyone to read up on them and make up your own mind.

A little about metrobest's characterisation of anyone who happens to either read or post on platform 11's message boards as "members" of platform 11. As I stated before (and which he skillfully ignored), I am not, nor have I ever been a member of P11. I don't agree with some of what they say, and I think they need to sort their PR strategy out. To reiterate, agreeing with them on the interconnector, or even discussing it with them on their message boards does not make somebody a member of their orginisation.

Oh. One more thing. It is either naivety or an attempt to mislead to use timings on the current network to gauge travel times on the new network, considering that there may be different rolling stock involved on the new network (if you are considering a route which is currently served by diesel railcars) and there will certainly be signalling and priority changes. Bear this in mind when considering metrobest's post above.

GerardKeating

maxheadroom wrote:

Why? The two "express" tracks will have no need to go anywhere near the platforms at the northern commuter stations.

If the express tracks run along side the existing tracks, the platforms are in the way.

One could route the "express tracks behind the existing platforms, but in Raheny this would require the existing road bridge to be replaced. One can get 4 tracks under the bridge if the platforms are moved.

Zaph0d

Metrobest wrote:

I sympathise with your viewpoint that Connolly is an annoying station for Maynooth trains to terminate in. But for tens and thousand of passengers, Connolly is the best station. Thousands of people who work in the IFSC use it. If you're going to O'Connel Street, Parnell Street, The Quays, Henry Street, Jervis Street, Mary Street, Moore Street, Eden Quay, Busaras, and many more, Connolly or Tara are by far the best stations to get off at.

If you start at a Dart station north of Clontarf then your journey will be longer if you are heading for

Connolly Station

Tara Station

Anything station south of Pearse Station on the current Dart

But on the other hand, the train now brings you to Stephens's Green and on to Heuston and if your destination is Northside you can get on the Luas at Spencer Dock and carry on to O'Connell Street, Smithfield, etc.

If you haven't had reason to be in the East end of the IFSC recently you would be forgiven for thinking there is nothing down there. Have a look at this map to see what's there already:
http://www.ifsconline.ie/map.html
Spencer Dock is at the bottom of the map beside Guild Street. You can see Amiens Street (Connolly) at the top. Many of the commercial properties shown on this map employ over 1,000 people eg Citibank. The residential blocks are up to 8 stories high. The national college of Ireland is also located her, as are two hotels and numerous bars and restaurants.

But this is just the start... Spencer Dock itself is getting a 6million sq ft development by treasury holdings. If you look at the development plans here:
http://www.ddda.ie/cold_fusion/planning/planning.cfm
you'll see that the future development to the East and South will quadruple the size of the existing IFSC.

It is difficult to say that Spencer Dock will be in the middle of nowhere and no-one will want to go there.

maxheadroom

GerardKeating wrote:

If the express tracks run along side the existing tracks, the platforms are in the way.

One could route the "express tracks behind the existing platforms, but in Raheny this would require the existing road bridge to be replaced. One can get 4 tracks under the bridge if the platforms are moved.

I would presume that they would want to keep the express tracks as far from existing platforms and stations etc as possible. Or at the very least, have them highly segragated (how fast does the enterprise go at top speed?)

I don't know the nothern dart line very well at all, but would the bridge be a candidate for a drop in replacement like the rail bridge at east wall, for instance?

Victor

GerardKeating wrote:

If the express tracks run along side the existing tracks, the platforms are in the way. One could route the "express tracks behind the existing platforms, but in Raheny this would require the existing road bridge to be replaced. One can get 4 tracks under the bridge if the platforms are moved.

Replacing the bridge would be a modest event is the scheme of things.

Metrobest

maxheadroom wrote:

The whole point of this plan is to reduce pressure in central dublin. Connoly is a huge part of that problem. Building the interconnector to connoly would compound the pressure on the station, not relieve it..

Connolly is a central hub station: 7 platforms (a metro link would add two more), a huge foyer, all sorts of catering facilities, plenty of space. It is the ideal station to add a Metro to. That's why my Circle Line stops there.

For some reason you think Pearse is better. I don't know why, and I don't think anyone else will. Pearse is tiny. It can't cope with any more passenger loads. The only way to make Pearse an interchange on the level you're suggesting is to raze the station and build it from scratch. Why would you dream of doing that, when Connolly was built specifically for this purpose?

maxheadroom wrote:

metrobest has a completely fictional plan with imaginary costings that does more or less the same thing as the dublin rail plan. He also doesn't seem to be willing to accept the realities of the situation, with regards current capacities, current constraints, possible benefits of the opposing plan, etc..

The only benefit I see in the Interconnector is making it easy to travel Kildare-Stephen's Green. I also totally agree with electrifyint Kildare and Maynooth. There is little other benefit from the Interconnector. Added to this is the negative impact the 3.4bn Interconnector will have on the lives of the thousands and thousands of people who use Connolly and Tara presently, and I can't see where the Value For Money is, in the plan you seem to adore. When you look at the 'back of an envelope' LUAS and CIE's history of not keeping to budgets, I don't think your accusation is fair. I'll admit my plan hasn't been costed. I'm basing my figures on the Amsterdam plan, which is being done for 1.5bn per line. I've already told you how difficult and delicate constructing the line in Amsterdam will be; I can't imagine it being ANY MORE difficult in Dublin...

maxheadroom wrote:

It is also important to remember that, as great as this debate was, the two plans going forward for funding are the dublin rail plan (including the interconnector) and the single line RPA airport metro. We can all sit here and draw our version of the ideal metro on a map, but that's not really conduicive to getting the problem solved. There are only two options on the table, and I urge everyone to read up on them and make up your own mind..

'Going forward'... You sound like a Northern Ireland politician! 'Going forward' is civil service talk. Let's look at what's needed for NOW and take action. And I say that we need a Central Dublin metro, not the InterCONnector.

maxheadroom wrote:

agreeing with P11 on the interconnector, or even discussing it with them on their message boards does not make somebody a member of their orginisation..

Well they have proven they cannot take criticism. Anyone who disagrees with them is banned or threatened with a ban. Since you haven't been banned I can only assume you are 'on message'

maxheadroom wrote:

It is either naivety or an attempt to mislead to use timings on the current network to gauge travel times on the new network, .

Timings are based on electic DART trains (12 per hour through the loop line). New timings will also be based on the same electric DART trains (16 per hour through the loop line) so I don't see where the scope for quickening up journey times will come. In the abscene of any evidence on your part that journey times will be faster post-Interconnector, I kindly suggest we stick to current available evidence, which suggests a 4 minute journey from Clontarf to Connolly will become 22-26 minutes post-Interconnector. If you don't believe me go to Irishrail.ie and do the maths for yourself.

Ps. To Philip: it was becoming a struggle trying to deal with you juvenile assertions (like trains every 3.5 minutes from Clonsilla and a station at East Wall that the 3.4bn plan doesn't include).. When you move to Munchen I think you'll find you'll have a different perspective on the solutions for Dublin. Transport in Munich is everything Dublin can and should be. In the meantime, please enjoy handing out flyers in Raheny station, telling the passengers it'll take 34 minutes to get to Connolly.. That'll go down well, I'm sure!

Victor

Haven't I read this before? Locked.