[Article] Metro work to begin in April

MicraBoy

DIGGING work on the controversial €1.5bn Metro line from Dublin city to the airport gets under way in April, it was revealed yesterday.

The fact that the initial exploratory work begins so soon will come as a surprise to commuters and businesses.

Already serious concerns have been raised over the impact of the digging and tunnelling works on traffic.

We will have to put up with digging for the Metro - to be completed by 2015 - and for a new link between the two unconnected Luas lines in the city centre.

Both rail systems will be totally separate but will run along exactly the same route as far as O'Connell Street, the Metro running underground, the Luas link running overground.

The Metro route from the city centre to Swords via Dublin Airport is being officially unveiled by the Government next week following a briefing to the Cabinet by Transport Minister Martin Cullen, yesterday.

The Metro is expected to go from St Stephen's Green, Westmoreland Street, O'Connell Street, Dorset Street, Griffith Avenue, Glasnevin and Dublin City University (DCU), Ballymun, Dublin Airport, and on to Swords. Travel time to the airport is estimated at 17 minutes.

Link

Separately, a €100m Luas line linking the two unconnected lines from Tallaght and Sandyford will also go from St Stephen's Green, Westmoreland Street, and O'Connell Street.

Work on this project is due to get under way later this year and the link is due to be finished by 2009. This is the route which emerged as the most popular with the public during consultations on possible routes.

Following a Cabinet meeting Mr Cullen announced that the route for the Metro will be unveiled next week and the public invited to air their views.

Geophysical digging is due to start on the Metro project in April.

Mr Cullen said yesterday: "These developments represent significant staging posts on the delivery of one of Transport 21's key projects, Metro North.

"We are now ready to start the physical groundwork on building the Metro service, running from St Stephen's Green via the airport to Swords," the minister added.

A Department of Transport spokesperson said yesterday that the geotechnical work would not cause any traffic disruptions.

Meanwhile, plans for a new Luas line to Dublin's booming Citywest area are being unveiled tomorrow.

As recently revealed by the Irish Independent, the 3.2km tram service spur off the Tallaght line is expected to cost up to €100m.

Much of the cost is being met by two developers, Davy Hickey Properties and Harcourt Properties in a public-private partnership.

Boom

The line will run from Belgard to Citywest and will cater for the commercial district there as well as an expected housing boom and is due to open in 2009.

The cost of building new Luas lines is currently running at €30m per kilometre. A public inquiry into the extension of the Sandyford line to Cherrywood in south Dublin is being heard next Monday. This line is scheduled to open in 2010.

Luas is now carrying over 70,000 passengers a day. Mr Cullen will launch the public consultation on the proposed Citywest Luas link at South Dublin County Council's offices in Tallaght tomorrow.

Link

Ok I know it's my fault for reading the Indo in the morning but how can Treacy Hogan make a statement like this?

Both rail systems will be totally separate but will run along exactly the same route as far as O'Connell Street, the Metro running underground, the Luas link running overground.

Haven't they just finished the consultation period for the Luas and as such it's route is undecided?

On a side note I just noticed the RPA now has a dedicated METRO section on its website. http://www.rpa.ie

murphaph

I tend to get the feeling that the goverment would rather like some progress made on this before the next election.

MT

Is the long term plan to extend the Metro to other locations along other routes?

murphaph

MT wrote:

Is the long term plan to extend the Metro to other locations along other routes?

Yeah, as part of T21 a line will run from Tallaght to Ballymun in an orbital fashion around the city, roughly paralleling the M50 but hitting the major population centres along the way. It will run near my house

Assuming a triangular junction at Ballymun, the routes could be Swords-City, Swords-Tallaght or Tallaght-City.

Transport21 Fan

murphaph wrote:

Assuming a triangular junction at Ballymun, the routes could be Swords-City, Swords-Tallaght or Tallaght-City.

This is a far more important aspect of the Dublin Metro than trying to impose the IE track gauge on the Metro - as a triangle junction at "The Mun" allows full working interoperatbility with Metro and Luas citywide, and from a purely selfish point of view, allows me to get on the Metro right from the Sligo line in order to get to Dublin Airport without having to go city centre.

The more you look at Transport21, the more the genius in the design becomes more apparent. It's really a machine designed to tighten up the density of Dublin city and end suburban sprawl. Just multiply the number of new developments along the Red and Green Luas lines and multiple that by all the Metro and Luas lines which are coming. Dublin will be changed forever and for the better.

Maskhadov

I just pray that the Metro will built to high standards...... i.e high frequency rail cars (or whatever is the correct term) can be run both at high frequency and to a high capacity. The guage for the MEtro is kind of irrevelant IMHO

1huge1

what happened to the metro from limerick city to shannon airport
there very close
shannon is preety much a suburb of limerick
is this happening or what?
dont flame me, its not my area of expertise

Transport21 Fan

1huge1 wrote:

what happened to the metro from limerick city to shannon airport
there very close
shannon is preety much a suburb of limerick
is this happening or what?
dont flame me, its not my area of expertise

There was a plan by a group called Beaux Walk to build a spur from the Limerick-Ennis line to Shannon Airport and town. (a Mansfield Citywest-Luas kind of deal) AFAIK the DOT are currently doing the sums to see if it is viable. Personally I don't think it is. But I await a real report. The planning in that part of the country is a disaster and unsuited to rail transport as everybody seems to live in one off houses in the middle of a field.

But having said that, if private money is paying for it then I have no problem with it. But they would really have to look at opening stations in the northern suburbs of Limerick and also in places like Sixmilebridge if the project was to make any sense.

Personally, I can see the RPA building Light Rail systems for Limerick, Cork and Galway at some stage in the next 20 years. But the decision would have to come from central government, as in the case of Galway and Limerick both these cities are run by gombeen throwbacks lost in the 1970's who have yet to come to terms with modern transport and land usage economics.

It's all "mosherways to the burbs boyo!" and nothing else.

sliabh

We will have to put up with digging for the Metro - to be completed by 2015 - and for a new link between the two unconnected Luas lines in the city centre.

Both rail systems will be totally separate but will run along exactly the same route as far as O'Connell Street, the Metro running underground, the Luas link running overground.

There is something terribly ironic about the Indo complaining
First that the metro would lead to disruption - so the government then chickened out of building the whole thing in one go and we ended up with the runt Luas green line instead (go back 5-10 years for this)

Then complaining that the two luas lines don't meet (which they were never intended to do) after the green line stopped at the green partially because of their whinging

Then complaining about the work to link the two lines!!!!

If the Luas cured cancer in the morning the indo would run a story complaining about medical staff being made redundant because of it.

Chris_533976

9 years to build it.


Jesus Christ.

murphaph

That's not the timeline given under T21. It claims the metro to Swords will be operational by 2011 or 2012, with metro west being opened in phases with complete opening by 2014. I think these have been deliberately padded and we'll see results faster on both lines.

Transport21 Fan

murphaph wrote:

I think these have been deliberately padded and we'll see results faster on both lines.

Yeah I agree, these are seriously conservative timelines in order to bring the project in a year or so sooner than schedule. The NRA have learned to do this with roads projects and the DOT seems to have adopted this same tactic.

spacetweek

murphaph wrote:

That's not the timeline given under T21. It claims the metro to Swords will be operational by 2011 or 2012, with metro west being opened in phases with complete opening by 2014. I think these have been deliberately padded and we'll see results faster on both lines.

Either that or it's just shoddy reporting from the Spindo.

Maskhadov

Spindo very good.

There is no doubt that a metro could be operational a lot sooner than 2011 or 2014 if we got the finger out and had the Critical infastructure Bill working.

Has the details of the stations, track guage and all the rest of it being finalised yet ? Some of it is incredibly important and I just pray that were getting a top quality metro and not a suped up Luas on stilts (no offence to LUAS but its limited in capacity)

Winters

You, the people of Dublin, shall be getting the latter.

What do you call a metro with at grade crossings, 5 min intervals and line of sight running?

A sham, thats what it is.

murphaph

Line of sight running? Really? :eek:

I have no objection to level crossings in principle. There are one or two very quiet roads that would not suffer from a level crossing that I can think of, but obviously on any road of importance there should be full grade separation.

Winters

Yes, in outer suburban areas. Mainly on the metro west put possibly on metro north beyond the M50.

MarkoP11

What I have seen so far is acres of level crossings only to be told sure they are small roads not busy, its a bit self defeating what happens 10 years from now traffic levels will increase

There was a time when Dublin was getting a full blown proper spec metro with all the bells and whistles, the cost was obscene it was gold plated to an extent, so it was chopped, of course that gave us a metro with limited capacity, a bit of moaning griping and a little high profile media coverage of a certain report* and the RPA did a rethink and things improved, the oribital metro resurfaced the capacity is back more or less, its 90 m trains now not the 50 odd metre ones of before

* http://www.platform11.org/reports/2005/metro_eng_eval.pdf

DerekP11

The Metro project as proposed by the RPA certainly looks to be very "light" and "modified" version of what people should expect, according to information P11 have received within the last 24 hours. While Im sure that certain "leaks" will be made in the media over the coming days and blown beyond all proportion through ignorance, we hope to have a detailed breakdown available online in relation to Metro North very soon.

And in my opinion, its frightening when one thinks of what a Metro should be. It has been debated many times here. P11s own assertion that the DART was the beginnings of a metro were often rediculed, but whats appearing from the RPA will be a real eye opener to some for all the wrong reasons, but maybe acceptable to others.

And Winters is right, the word "sham" does tend to spring to mind. But its early days yet and more analysis is required.

murphaph

How many level crossings are we talking about?

Transport21 Fan

Line of site running for a metro? Then it has to be a SnellTRAM. Nothing wrong with that having seen the thing in action myself.

The only thing I would be pissed off about is no triangle junction at Ballymun.

SeanW

T21 Fan, I think you're falling into the trap that Marko pointed out of siding with one fiefdom over the other, when they both suck equally.

It's like Fianna Fail vs. Fine Gael here, or in the U.S. the two-party system where everyone votes for one becuase the other is a prick, when in reality there is often very little difference.

Same deal here, what with RPA, they decided that concerns about overcrowding on the Luad Red Line were "nonsense" (that's why the trams between Heuston and the CC are all stuffed like sardine cans even off peak).

30M tram anyone?

And they've been constently fudging on the Metro, and while I accept that some of their more insane cost estimates (such as the original €4.8bn) were down to slight gold plating and the use of a PPP) I must fundametally disagree with the SnelTram idea.

We've tried mass transport with level crossings (the DART and the Red Line Luas) and it has been a disaster.

For example, the Red Line from Connolly to Tallaght takes, what, 50 minutes? More? From Connolly, the Dublin-Sligo train would nearly be in Mullingar in 50 minutes. The RPA obviously played a blinder there.

Level crossing + Rapid transport = Don't work in Ireland. Irish Rail, such as they are, are trying to get rid of level crossings. The RPA wants to add more. Because they obviously haven't got a clue what the hell they're doing, and they don't learn, as the farces on the Red Luas prove.

And don't get me started on the RPAs take on "Integrated Ticketing" :mad: I could write a book on how totally messed up it is.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Irish Rail either, their "the culchies won't notice the sh*te crap trains, they're NEW" stance makes my blood boil as does their pathologically absurd, intergalactically stupid ticketing and fares policy.

But we can't fall into the trap of falling in love with one quango over the other when they both need a lot of work.

murphaph

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Line of site running for a metro? Then it has to be a SnellTRAM. Nothing wrong with that having seen the thing in action myself.

The only thing I would be pissed off about is no triangle junction at Ballymun.

I too would be happy to at least consider snelTram for metroWest. It would allow Swords-Citywest/Swords-Square/Swords-Red Cow etc. all with no change-the Luas tracks in this part of Dublin are 90% off street. I think the airport line has to be full on heavy rail however.

The orbital line has a much more dispersed set of push-pull factors. Many more shorter journeys will be made on it because it doesn't run exclusively into the city centre. All along it's route are origins and destinations-housing from end to end and businesses from end to end.

I don't envisage nearly as many full length journeys on metroWest as on metroNorth.

Idbatterim

its nearly enough to make you sick, the RPA are a disgrace! as has been mentioned, it takes 43 minutes to get from tallaght to city centre, far to many crossings, youd be far quicker cycling for god sake! i am all in favour of a proper transport system for Dublin, who isnt?! but E4.8 billion for 1 line thats 12km long? its absolute insanity, i mean are they taking the p!ss! for what how can that cost 5000 million euro! the lack of integration, capacity etc its obsolete before it even gets off the drawing board, atleast IR know what they are doing, have experience and have brought recent projects in under budget and on time... There is no comnparing whats on offer spec or money wise between the IR and RPA plans, how can that body want to build something for 5 billion just to say they are doing something its insane, and the political meddling is unbelievable! bring in the germans or french or someone who knows what they are doing, cause they most certainly dont here, cowboys!

Metrobest

That's an ill-informed post.
The metro won't cost eur4.8bn to build; that figure relates to operational costs over a 25-year period.
The RPA weren't responsible for planning the level crossings on the Red line; those decisions were made (thanks to CIE) before the RPA was established.

T21 provides for two metro lines and a grandiose (or wonderful, depending on your view) interconnector tunnel. It's not a competion between the projects.

Philip, I think you're right about MetroWest being used for shorter trips. I just wonder if there's a real business case for building it without clear planning policies to establish high density along its route, as opposed to the current low denisty mix of sprawled housing estates, out-of-town motorway-dependent shopping centres and low-rise industrial estates/wasteland.

Would a monorail be more appropriate, and less expensive?

murphaph

I'm confident that even without metroWest any infill land in west Dublin is being built to medium-high density anyway. land is simply too valuable to build any more semi-d's on it.

MarkoP11

The first metro plan was the full blown 6 coach fully separated gig with all the connectivity you could wave a stick at it took a slightly longer route via Broadstone and Finglas.

It was gold platted to death by the RPA which resulted in a crazy price of 4.8 billion, the key here it to note most of that is paying off the private sector as the metro was to be built as a PPP, that led to a cost increase of 2-2.5 times, on paper to build it its only about 2-2.5 billion, the construction cost

I've got most of the costs of public transport elements of T21 worked out the one thing I've not got a numbers for is the metro, I've got 6 billion left over........ I've got Iarnrod Eireann's numbers since they are publicly available none of this commercial sensitivity lark

Applying some logic and some sense the price, the construction cost fell to little over a billion but there was an over eager chopping of bits, so the capacity to make the orbital metro happen later was removed as was most of the integration. The RPA refused permission to release the bulk of the details of the plans and cost, in contrast Iarnrod Eireann have been more than happy to release an itemised list with both the ex VAT and incl VAT prices

Things started to change in April 2005, Swords started to get talked up a lot more and Fingal got there act together and made a seriously good case to get the metro to Swords, they put up a lot of cash and commissioned a report, Metro North which was leaked to RTE, this report has yet to be released to the public again the RPA have buried the details.

The RPA are not to be trusted

RPA wrote:

Metro achieves this vision by offering a fully segregated, high performance, high capacity rail line without any at-grade interfaces with pedestrians, road traffic or other rail services.* The Metro line would travel in tunnel through the city centre.* Outside the city centre the Metro would be elevated for much of its length, where there was no existing rail corridor, to avoid at grade interfaces.* This dedicated line with full segregation allows a fast, frequent, and reliable service.

Where does level crossings fit in there talk about changing your mind

The original plans for serving Tallaght where a rail line from Clondalkin up the Kingswood incline to Tallaght, there was even a mock photo of a DART climbing the hill done up sometime in the 1985-1987 timeframe CIE where refused and told to come up with a cheaper solution, the locals in Inchicore also caused a rerouting which added quite a distance, the politicians where the main culprits that said the end implementation is still poor the traffic management is less than impressive.

Slowly but surely the information is leaking out and its filling the gaps, over eager RPA staff at open days are far too forthcoming with information, that how I picked up on the level crossing business when I ask how they would be taken out on the existing Sandyford line

What is really worrying you have Iarnrod Eireann doing its best to eliminate as many level crossings as possible country wide and you have the RPA seemingly happy to add as many as they like to a green field system. If you have a clean sheet you build the best system you can avoiding all the pitfalls, the dream of a 110m long 6 car metro running at tight intervals has been replaced by a supped up tram

Idbatterim

are the level crossings to be taken out of the sandyford line, and how is this proposed?

MarkoP11

No word on how to take them out but they seem to think they can take some of them out (well there is one they put in themselves), indeed when I asked about the 12 odd ones on the extension to Cherrywood and a latter metro upgrade they where only concerned about 1 (Burton Hall Road) the other odd 11 where small roads etc etc wouldn't need to be taken out. The bulk of those roads are from large housing estates cross the alignment and then immediately face a currently unsignalled T junction looks like great fun

Its a complete odds with what the RPA where yapping about in the recent past

Transport21 Fan

MarkoP11 wrote:

the dream of a 110m long 6 car metro running at tight intervals has been replaced by a supped up tram

Which city wide is more operationally flexible over the entire metro system and part of the Luas as well. This is not a discount metro, it is a more appropiate one for low density, sprawling Dublin.

Capacity can be increased massively by increasing frequency and line of sight running is part of this. Look at how they do in Amsterdam and Vienna with trams head to arse. This is the advantage of line of sight - it allows you to huge run rolling stock numbers down a line which would be impossible and unsafe with heavy rail. Besides - 17mins to the airport is fantastic. What's the problem?

I am not being contrary for the sake of it. I have seen this kind of metro system in operation and it works extremely well, creates operational synergies which are highly flexible in terms of services and route selctions between peak and off peak services. The Airport route is 100% segerated from what I understand with a couple of road crossings between the Airport and Swords. This is not an apoclyptic scenario by any measure. Metrowest is not an Tallaght-Airport express line, it is designed as a local stopping line in west Dublin. This does not make it any less effective.

The people using Line 51 in Amesterdam did not look frightened or cheated at all to me and I was very impressed with with I saw. If this is the metro Dublin is getting then good call RPA.

dowlingm

I thought DART wasn't a metro because of LCs... is metro not a metro now?

MarkoP11

No it Luas with in a different colour this is not metro even by the RPA's own definition

RPA wrote:

Metro achieves this vision by offering a fully segregated, high performance, high capacity rail line without any at-grade interfaces with pedestrians, road traffic or other rail services.* The Metro line would travel in tunnel through the city centre.* Outside the city centre the Metro would be elevated for much of its length, where there was no existing rail corridor, to avoid at grade interfaces.* This dedicated line with full segregation allows a fast, frequent, and reliable service.

Its a level crossing free for all, any road which the alignment crosses that isn't in a tunnel has the potential to be a level crossing, we just have to wait till the plans appear but going on what is already public there will be level crossings and quite a few. Time to resort to the aerial photos

murphaph

How many level crossings are we talking?

gobdaw

murphaph wrote:

I too would be happy to at least consider snelTram for metroWest. It would allow Swords-Citywest/Swords-Square/Swords-Red Cow etc. all with no change-the Luas tracks in this part of Dublin are 90% off street. I think the airport line has to be full on heavy rail however.

The orbital line has a much more dispersed set of push-pull factors. Many more shorter journeys will be made on it because it doesn't run exclusively into the city centre. All along it's route are origins and destinations-housing from end to end and businesses from end to end.

I don't envisage nearly as many full length journeys on metroWest as on metroNorth.

Yes, but should we be trying to avoid the mistakes of the M50. If transport moves away from private motor, Metro West will become the orbital “Main Street” and should be future proofed. Projected needs of 30 to 40 years down the road should be the target. Infrastructural investment should be made to maintain the current economic growth. Line-of-sight implies, to me, a tram system, not exactly the bold investment indicated for this spine. I agree that any infill land in west Dublin is currently being built to medium-high density. In fact, land will so increase in value that high-density redevelopment both residential and commercial will happen along corridors served by rail, reducing the logjam of An Lar mentality.

Idbatterim wrote:

are the level crossings to be taken out of the sandyford line, and how is this proposed?

It would not be possible to remove level crossings without closing the line for the duration of works to separate the grades, unless it is intended to close these roads, making them into cul-de-sacs.

Transport21Fan wrote:

The people using Line 51 in Amsterdam did not look frightened or cheated at all to me and I was very impressed with with I saw. If this is the metro Dublin is getting then good call RPA.

I have not been in Amsterdam for many years now, to my loss. Then, the practice was to rely solely on the trams, except at rush hours when they were augmented by busses. As I understand, the Snell TRAM augments or shares “road” space with the trams. They would have virtue in that scenario, but I cannot see their use in full heavy rail metro.

This is our chance to break out of the practice of transport planning catch up, and instead plan optimistically for tomorrow.

murphaph

gobdaw wrote:

Yes, but should we be trying to avoid the mistakes of the M50. If transport moves away from private motor, Metro West will become the orbital “Main Street” and should be future proofed. Projected needs of 30 to 40 years down the road should be the target. Infrastructural investment should be made to maintain the current economic growth. Line-of-sight implies, to me, a tram system, not exactly the bold investment indicated for this spine. I agree that any infill land in west Dublin is currently being built to medium-high density. In fact, land will so increase in value that high-density redevelopment both residential and commercial will happen along corridors served by rail, reducing the logjam of An Lar mentality.

I would not be in favour of a glorified tram line for metroWest. I'd want high level platforms built to metroNorth spec, just using snelTram vehicles to allow the service to penetrate the existing Luas network in and around Tallaght, which will be pretty good by the time metroWest opens.

Transport21 Fan

We are all living in the land of speculation and in some quarters downright hysteria over the alleged specs of this metro and we really can only make gusses at what is planned. I agree that the line to the airport should be fully segregated (but I would not be demanding RPA's head on a plate if it was) and I would be gutted if there was no tri-angle junction somewhere near Ballymun and I agree with gobdaw that we should be future proofing if we can.

But...future proofing is not always a case of plant and engineering. In the case of a SNELLtram/Luas you can boost capacity much more easily than you can with heavy rail. You are not just dependent on longer trains as you are with DART to increase passengers, you simply add more trains to the track (and I am using "trains" in the broadest sense here) and line of sight is part and parcel of this approach. The limitations of strict headways which the DART and a heavy rail metro has to live with is nullified by line of sight running. So there are pro and cos to all systems.

None of us is every going to get the perfect metro/commuter rail or tram system for Dublin and just like in life some will be dissapointed and others elated and the majority of Irish people won't give a toss about the engineering as long as it works.

The Metro is not a stand alone project, it is part of a system which includes Luas, DART, buses etc. This is why the Americans call it "Mass Transit"...the load is shared by the greater mass of the whole modal diveristy system. This is what Transport21 is aiming for. The main reason I left P11 was because for me personally the mission was accomplished. We got the Interconnector (which contray to what some people think I still believe to be far more important than any metro), but sadly P11 failed miserably to get the Phoenix Park tunnel route included in T21. I blame IE management for this as they simply don't care, and I put it down to their lack of creativity in their approach to ALL railways operations under their watch.

You can't have everything you want in life, but when you look at T21 in its totality with DART/Communter Rail/Luas/"MEtro" it is a pretty awesome package and for some people to get hung un on specific engineering aspects on one element is missing the point of what the Government is trying to achieve here.

But realistically, we are all just speculating here until we see the actual plans. When that happens, then we will have some points to mull over - but that's all that will happen, we can only literally mull on internet message boards because I can tell you one thing for a fact. The DoT are utterly smitten with the RPA and have told them do it their way and the Government will back them up. So if we get a SNELLTram we are getting one - end of story.

DerekP11

Transport21 Fan wrote:

but sadly P11 failed miserably to get the Phoenix Park tunnel route included in T21. I blame IE management for this as they simply don't care, and I put it down to their lack of creativity in their approach to ALL railways operations under their watch.

Subsequent investigation revealed that the introduction of services on the Phoenix park tunnel route was not actually part of the T21 remit, because it is an operational line(albeit, very lightly) and the provision of services on the route is, plain and simply, an issue for IE. Its lack of inclusion on the T21 map is somewhat irrelevent. That said, IE have absolutely no interest in developing it and have made no moves towards electrifying it in line with other upgrades. (this could have got it on the T21 map) However this work would not rely on funding under T21 in any case. Furthermore, the mass of support and formation of user groups on the Kildare line, the inclusion/mobilisation of local resident organisations in the Cabra area and other work that is ongoing by P11, has managed to make this route a real issue. I can say that its about to explode all over IE at public meetings and their excuses can be contradicted with ease. It will be a bigger issue this year than when P11 first presented it in 2003, as it now takes on even more importance in the context of the imminent metro north planning and obvious integration.

So any type of failure, can only be deemed a failure when all avenues are exhausted. I can promise you that scheduled services will run through the park tunnel, before a single brick is laid for Spencer Dock station. Keep watching.

Transport21 Fan

DerekP11 wrote:

So any type of failure, can only be deemed a failure when all avenues are exhausted. I can promise you that scheduled services will run through the park tunnel, before a single brick is laid for Spencer Dock station. Keep watching.

I'll beleive it when I see it - but'll be a great day if it happens, and it'll be no thanks to CIE/IE managment who would rip up this "works line" with a JCB if they could get away with.

I am so convinced of that and a lot of this reason is that the d-Connector plan (still one of the best rail transport ideas ever devised in the history of railways in Ireland) was a great embrassment to these rail managers, highly paid transport consultants and faceless spooks in the DOT and really showed them all up for what they are and any attempt to somehow validate the d-Connector plan even partially would be an admission of failure on their behalf.

Maskhadov

From what I can gather this Metro is not a Metro. its a very disapointing realisation. I thought we were getting two lines which where completely segregated and would operate 6 cars at very high frequencies.

What we seem to be getting is a hacked down version that will have to stop for old people crossing the road at level crossings. Of course anything will be an improvement on what we have at the moment but this hardly plans for the future.

What we need is a high capacity Metro that is incredibly quick and efficent. This means 100% segregation whether its over ground or underground.

The media should be let know what is really on the cards here

"The same Luas carriages could be used in the metro. Unlike most metro systems built many years ago, this will feature a low-floor train, exactly like we're used to on the Luas now. We spent time in Frankfurt and Hamburg - cities where a metro and tram system work hand in hand - and they will be our models for the new metro.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1569346&issue_id=13728

What are the Metro's like in FrankFurt and Hamburg ? Well at least they are following the german model.

A Dub in Glasgo

It will be good if they are going to follow the Germans but it sounds like they want to implement streetcar arrangments for the metro

Hamburg U-Bahn
Hamburg S-Bahn
Frankfurt

Metrobest

Maskadhov, don't worry, I think what he's talking about it the aesthetics of the metro, not the length or capacity. Inside it will look like a luas carraige - the entire train will be one long 90 metre carriage. (Other metro systems feature trains divided into a number of seperate carriages; these look outdated.) They have to try and put this into layman's language so that people can understand what they're getting fron this metro, so by making comparisons with the popular and successful luas, they achieve this goal.

The metro will be fully segregated between Stephen's Green and the airport. I haven't seen the plans for Swords, but there may be valid reasons for running it at-grade for some of that stretch of line. For example, existing built-up areas can be difficult to serve by elevated track - you cannot build a metro line over people's back gardens. It's important to remember that elevated railway track can be visually disruptive which could result in protests or inflate the project costs; do we want the metro delayed for years in a Hill Of Tara-style quagmire? These are all considerations I presume the RPA have to take into account. Far easier for us to sit here and be armchair critics.

Most people were surprised when T21 promised a metro to Swords in phase 1 - we had been led to believe it would be a phase 2 project. I'm delighted it's in there, and I think anyone who's had to sit on a bus out to Swords would be thrilled to see any form of "metro/express tram" insted of a double decker bus.

With all this speculation about costs, another important point must be made. Estimates are only estimates and until the project goes out to tender it cannot be properly costed. It is obtuse for Marko P11 to try and point-score against the RPA by saying that they are not giving him commercially sensitive information, even though apparantly it's "all on Irish Rail's website". Irish Rail's estimates haven't gone through anything like the same rigourous analysis as the metro's, to the point where we haven't even seen a cost/benefit analysis of the project.

Bill McH

Metrobest wrote:

Maskadhov, don't worry, I think what he's talking about it the aesthetics of the metro, not the length or capacity. Inside it will look like a luas carraige - the entire train will be one long 90 metre carriage. (Other metro systems feature trains divided into a number of seperate carriages; these look outdated.)

But wouldn't it make sense to have separate carriages so that there could be more efficient running at off-peak times, i.e., similar frequencies with shorter trains?

jd

Bill McH wrote:

But wouldn't it make sense to have separate carriages so that there could be more efficient running at off-peak times, i.e., similar frequencies with shorter trains?

why bother making metros shorter? it would be less efficient because of the time andeffort taken to couple/decouple them.

Transport21 Fan

The Frankfurt U-Bahn is a combined system of full metro and on street tram. U4 was originally built as a tram tunnel.

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/trams/Frankfurt-M/station/pix.html

Maskhadov

Well I dont really care how the stations look. The can always be done up at a later date if needs be and your only in them for a few minutes - usually in a rush.

I thought all the Metro Line would be grade seperated, not just to the Airport but everywhere. The Metro after all is going to be the biggest people mover in the state. By right it should have grade seperation EVERYWHERE and the appropriate authorities should buy out land if needs be.

Victor

Winters wrote:

What do you call a metro with at grade crossings, 5 min intervals and line of sight running?

DART? :v:

Bill McH

jd wrote:

why bother making metros shorter? it would be less efficient because of the time andeffort taken to couple/decouple them.

As regards time, coupling/decoupling can be done pretty quickly. I don't know about the effort involved. The savings would be on the energy required to run the trains and on wear-and-tear. Plenty of cities run shorter trains at off-peak times - we do it ourselves with the DART.

jd

Bill McH wrote:

As regards time, coupling/decoupling can be done pretty quickly. I don't know about the effort involved. The savings would be on the energy required to run the trains and on wear-and-tear. Plenty of cities run shorter trains at off-peak times - we do it ourselves with the DART.

But do other cities do it with metros?

murphaph

jd wrote:

But do other cities do it with metros?

Yes. German U-Bahn stations have signs to tell you if the next train is a short, medium or long one, and whereabouts on the platform it'll stop.

Munich uses old stock off peak in short formation but also has modern articulated stock (inseperable during operation) which is used during the peak times.

Metrobest

Bill McH wrote:

As regards time, coupling/decoupling can be done pretty quickly. I don't know about the effort involved. The savings would be on the energy required to run the trains and on wear-and-tear. Plenty of cities run shorter trains at off-peak times - we do it ourselves with the DART.

In the business case for the metro, RPA estimated a demand ratio of 4:1 peak/off-peak. In the light of our experienecs with luas (very high all-day demand), it's fair to say that this ratio is conservative. Luas's busiest day is friday - it's used for commutes to work in the morning, and for shopping/going out in the evening. Consider also that the metro serves the airport, two universities, a hospital, and the retail/entertainment districts of the city centre - these will stimulate demand outside of the rush hour.

There is also the aesthetic argument. Think of metro line 1 in Paris. Sleek, roomy and airy, the trains are pleasure to ride. Compare this to a claustrophobic tube, or one of the other Paris metro lines divided into cars. There's no comparison!

SeanW

Metrobest, it may be fair to lay blame with the CIE LRPO for some of the Luas's failures. I don't know enough about the early beginnings of the project to make comment there.

But the RPA have been around and in charge since 2001 so they must share a large portion of the blame for what has happened.

For example, they lowered some parts of the old Harcourt St. alignment to make a level crossing :eek: and didn't try to do anything about the 30M red vs. 40M trams Green line despite any fool with 1/4 of a brain being able to predict that the stretch of line from Heuston to the City Centre was going to be very busy. According to one of the RPA authority guys, P11s concern about this is still "nonsense"

Then we have the Metro ... now assuming that CIE are fully to blame for the fact that it's quicker to get to Enfield or Drogheda from Connolly than Tallaght, you would think the RPA had learned their lessons about on-street running and level crossing ... but apparently not.

So now they're going to compromise what by their own admission is the fundamental principle of a Metro system ... for the want of a few bloody bridges? :mad: Un-be-effing-lieveable.