Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

marno21

Idbatterim wrote: »

What is this 700 million figure for that is being bandied about ?

Metro North is currently funded until 2021 as part of Building on Recovery, the Government's Capital Investment Plan published in 2015

This funding includes money for the full redesign, CPO and money to begin construction in 2021.

The rest of the funding will be revealed as part of the Government's new Capital Plan in Q1 2018.

plodder

Consonata wrote: »

This is a great solution.

I'm just sad to see the problem has arisen at all, since it should've been forseen if the BXD had been built first. Now the taxpayer is paying 700 million as a result for a redesign.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that but still. This is these peoples jobs. Surely planning for every eventuality is a part of their job description and not having 700 million euro c**k ups.

Who do you think all these reviews and redesigns suits the most? The engineers and consultants who get paid to do that work. I imagine the absurdity of not going with the original design (barring the tie in with the green luas) is most obvious to them, but why would they rock the boat? If they are told to design a *NEW* Metro North, that's exactly what they will do. If the project never gets built, but continually "redesigned" then that's even better. Cynical of me, I know, but I'd say there is a grain of truth.

Idbatterim

plodder wrote: »

Who do you think all these reviews and redesigns suits the most? The engineers and consultants who get paid to do that work. I imagine the absurdity of not going with the original design (barring the tie in with the green luas) is most obvious to them, but why would they rock the boat? If they are told to design a *NEW* Metro North, that's exactly what they will do. If the project never gets built, but continually "redesigned" then that's even better. Cynical of me, I know, but I'd say there is a grain of truth.

Yeah that's what my German colleague suspected years ago. Delay for years. Then when it's built, have it under capacity , so that it can be "upgraded" multiple times through its life. More dollars for the boys...

I assume even with the level of morons you're dealing with here, the 60m trans will be off the agenda. My friend was on Luas yesterday on green line and saying people on it were getting very agitated by the overcrowding!

spacetweek

Idbatterim wrote: »

My friend was on Luas yesterday on green line and saying people on it were getting very agitated by the overcrowding!

It’s been like that for years, the current capacity upgrade which won’t be done until March is sorely needed but just a stopgap.

Ernest

BowSideChamp wrote: »

They need to run a decent BRT route to the airport & Swords through the Port Tunnel before they even think of Metro North.

Imagine also, the biggest delay to tourists coming to the City Centre is the disgrace that is Passport Control at DUB. This can be fixed with minimal investment.

I disagree with the first point but totally agree with the second.

The so-called "Free Travel Area" is a complete joke as far as incoming passengers at Dublin Airport is concerned:
Irish passengers can pass freely through Heathrow airport |arrivals without any passport control but UK passengers (and even Irish ones) have to face this Passport Control gauntlet every time when coming into Dublin Airport.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

If you're not proposing cancelling the Metro South upgrade, then you're proposing that it should be made unnecessarily expensive by not doing it in parallel with Metro North. Which is pointless.

While I very much hope that a metro connection between St. Stephen's Green and Swords, via the Airport, eventually goes ahead, it has to be remembered that the earlier plan is undergoing a rethink of its route at the moment and we don't know what will transpire. We don't even know if it will actually go ahead.

As such, it is way too early to talk about 'metro south upgrades', by which you mean an upgrade of the current Green line south of the canal, or certainly south of Ranelagh, to metro standard.

Thus, while there has been some mention of an eventual metro north tying in with the current Green Luas line south of the canal, to create one longer metro line, this is pure speculation at the moment, and way too early to say that that is the way it will go. I don't believe that's the way it should go.

Expense is not the issue here. Once Dublin gets the major first phase of the metro out of the way, and the important metro tunnel across the city centre has been built and the connection to the Airport and Swords via important Northside locations has been created, then the next steps may really be quite small.

Over the next few years, after metro north has been constructed, the tunnel could be gradually extended to serve new areas of the city which don't currently have rapid rail transport: perhaps initially towards the area around the Bleeding Horse, then to Rathmines and Rathgar and then in a later stage to Terenure and Templeogue and beyond, or from the Bleeding Horse to Harold's Cross and then in a later stage to Kimmage and Walkinstown and perhaps beyond.

None of those would cost a huge amount of money relative to the initial phase of getting the metro across the city. Either of those routes would also, most probably, make better use of the TBM than a short route towards Ranelagh, with nowhere else to go after that.

As I said above, expense is not the issue once the main metro north route has been built. When most of the city is crying out for public transport which is on a par with other cities of a similar size in Europe, why upgrade a line which - despite its current temporary problems, which will hopefully be solved when the new trams arrive in March - already has the highest frequency of service of any line in the country?

There is no way that an upgrade of the current Green line to metro standard is going to happen while the metro north line is being built. Any suggestion that those two projects are going to happen in parallel is a total pipedream, because of the cost of metro north.

They could happen in sequence, if at all, but I hope the opportunity is instead taken to design a southwest line (or lines) while the metro north is being constructed, to improve proper public transport for more of the city.

An upgrade of the Cherrywood line should come later, I feel, when the city's more pressing transport needs have been dealt with.

Sam Russell

MOD:
@ Strassenwolf

Can you stick to MN on this thread. Extending MN onto the Green line is already part of published plans.

Any other extensions should be kept for other threads discussing expansion of Dart or PT in the Dublin area.

Also Dublin Airport facilities like Passport checking is off topic.

jd

If they don't extend MN on to the Green Line, then they have to build turnaround loop tunnels. It's probably not costing much more to continue on to the Green Line at Charlemont and have the turnarounds overground on green field sites.

jd

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thus, while there has been some mention of an eventual metro north tying in with the current Green Luas line south of the canal, to create one longer metro line, this is pure speculation at the moment,

page 57 (National Transport Authority
Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035)

https://fe49d9ec8511d2dc0553-f8f415f79bf5d37d632aa2f721fb6d7c.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Transport_Strategy_for_the_Greater_Dublin_Area_2016-2035-1.pdf

While these schemes focus on the coastal areas, the western parts of the corridor, including Cherrywood and other potential development areas, will require high capacity public transport. It is, therefore, proposed to upgrade the Luas Green Line to Metro standard from the city centre, where it will link into the new Metro North, as far as its current terminus at Bride’s Glen. From this point to Bray, a new Luas line is proposed. This will provide a new north south inland rail axis from Swords to Bray. These rail services will be supplemented by the proposed BRT on the N11 from UCD to Blanchardstown, and the core radial bus corridors on the N11, south of UCD, and on the Rock Road.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There is no way that an upgrade of the current Green line to metro standard is going to happen while the metro north line is being built. Any suggestion that those two projects are going to happen in parallel is a total pipedream, because of the cost of metro north.

Why not?

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why not?

Unfortunately Strassenwolf has been forced to take a bit of a break from this forum, so will not be answering your query. Sorry about that.

However, there is a plan to extend MN to connect with the Green line as pointed out above.

Grandeeod

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why not?

Ah stop now! Are you for real? Do you need it spelled out to you why? Seriously, I respect your posts here, but considering our recent history and the political backdrop that any Metro project is set against, the chances are zero rated.

Grandeeod

As much as I have disagreed with Strassenwolf over the years, I think he has been stitched up here. What age are the mods and what experience/knowledge do they have on this particular subject??? Looks like minimum to me.

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why not?

I don't think he either truly understands how low impact the Green Line > Metro upgrade would be, or he doesn't want to understand.

Donvito had a good summary:

What modifications to the Green line are required? To descend into a portal somewhere at Charlemont would require the loss of about 6 houses according to Engineers Ireland in addition to the entirity of the former Irish Nationwide site. Every platform would have to be enlarged. Crossings at Beechwood/Stillorgan would have to be eliminated/ameliorated. Other than new vehicles, little else is required. The track, trackbed, power supply and depot are all there.

In terms of impact on the Green Line itself, that would be absolutely minimal - maybe a week or so to link up the portal track with the existing Green Line (it took less than a week to cross the Green Line over the Red Line).

LeinsterDub

Grandeeod wrote: »

Ah stop now! Are you for real? Do you need it spelled out to you why? Seriously, I respect your posts here, but considering our recent history and the political backdrop that any Metro project is set against, the chances are zero rated.

Perhaps I do need it spelt out but I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume your doubtful of the political will being there let's assume both have been funded. Is there any physical reason they can't be done together?

annfield1978

A consultant has been awarded consultancy services on NMN subject to a 2 week alcatel period

emact123

annfield1978 wrote: »

A consultant has been awarded consultancy services on NMN subject to a 2 week alcatel period

Who is the consultant? Thanks

Grandeeod

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Perhaps I do need it spelt out but I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume your doubtful of the political will being there let's assume both have been funded. Is there any physical reason they can't be done together?

In a perfect world there is no reason. But we don't live in a perfect country let alone a perfect world. I discuss things here based on reality, not fantasy. Sorry.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

In a perfect world there is no reason. But we don't live in a perfect country let alone a perfect world. I discuss things here based on reality, not fantasy. Sorry.

If you're discussing based on reality, perhaps you want to explain what the realistic reason is that the Metro South upgrade could not be done in parallel with Metro North construction? That is what you said couldn't be done and that we all shouldn't need to ask why, after all.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

If you're discussing based on reality, perhaps you want to explain what the realistic reason is that the Metro South upgrade could not be done in parallel with Metro North construction? That is what you said couldn't be done and that we all shouldn't need to ask why, after all.

The state won't fund it. You'll be lucky if the state funds any kind of Metro. Do you require info?

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

The state won't fund it. You'll be lucky if the state funds any kind of Metro. Do you require info?

That's a completely different proposition actually - you're talking about the whole Metro North project being a non-starter.

I genuinely believe that New Metro North plus the Metro South upgrade is actually more likely to go ahead, and get funding, than New Metro North on its own.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

That's a completely different proposition actually - you're talking about the whole Metro North project being a non-starter.

I genuinely believe that New Metro North plus the Metro South upgrade is actually more likely to go ahead, and get funding, than New Metro North on its own.

You are quite entitled to believe what you like. However there is an abundance of historical evidence in relation to rail based transport, that strongly suggests a real lack of will to actually invest heavily in any kind of underground rail network. I may be wrong, but I personally doubt it. For the record I'm not being negative or cynical for the sake of it. The reality of our current situation spans across decades and more recently across one decade and a few Governments.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

You are quite entitled to believe what you like. However there is an abundance of historical evidence in relation to rail based transport, that strongly suggests a real lack of will to actually invest heavily in any kind of underground rail network. I may be wrong, but I personally doubt it. For the record I'm not being negative or cynical for the sake of it. The reality of our current situation spans across decades and more recently across one decade and a few Governments.

Again, you're only addressing a point that nobody is talking about - the likelihood of the entire Metro project.

You replied to a conversation discussing the feasibility of doing the Metro South upgrade works in parallel with the construction of New Metro North, and you said that could never happen, but you refused to explain why.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

Again, you're only addressing a point that nobody is talking about - the likelihood of the entire Metro project.

You replied to a conversation discussing the feasibility of doing the Metro South upgrade works in parallel with the construction of New Metro North, and you said that could never happen, but you refused to explain why.

I'm talking about it and have done a lot in this thread. There are other opinions allowed.

I have explained why. It won't be funded. I've explained the funding part as well. My original reply to LeinsterDub clearly stated that in a perfect world it could be done. But this is not a perfect world. My reason for saying it won't be done is based on the reality of funding it, which in turn is based on the aforementioned evidence going back over 40 years.

By all means go back to your crayons. I never argue with crayons. Nobody can argue with crayons. But remember with money and will, we can overcome and achieve many things. However the money and will have yet again failed to materialise and that's a point that is and will be always worth mentioning in threads like these.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm talking about it and have done a lot in this thread. There are other opinions allowed.

I have explained why. It won't be funded. I've explained the funding part as well. My original reply to LeinsterDub clearly stated that in a perfect world it could be done. But this is not a perfect world. My reason for saying it won't be done is based on the reality of funding it, which in turn is based on the aforementioned evidence going back over 40 years.

By all means go back to your crayons. I never argue with crayons. Nobody can argue with crayons. But remember with money and will, we can overcome and achieve many things. However the money and will have yet again failed to materialise and that's a point that is and will be always worth mentioning in threads like these.

So from what I can tell, what you're actually saying, in the context of the conversation you quoted, is that you don't think the Metro South upgrade is any more or less likely to happen than the rest of New Metro North.

LeinsterDub

Grandeeod wrote: »

In a perfect world there is no reason. But we don't live in a perfect country let alone a perfect world. I discuss things here based on reality, not fantasy. Sorry.

As do I. So do you think upgrading the politically green line is impossible that's all well and good but I wasn't discussing the political possibilities.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

So from what I can tell, what you're actually saying, in the context of the conversation you quoted, is that you don't think the Metro South upgrade is any more or less likely to happen than the rest of New Metro North.

No it won't. You are in dreamland if you think it will. Mark my words. Another change of a Government leading party and it will all change again after more millions are poured into yet more reports/studies etc. etc. etc. The facts to back this up are too obvious once you care to put some time into it.

Grandeeod

LeinsterDub wrote: »

As do I. So do you think upgrading the green line is impossible. Or just politically impossible?

Politically unlikely boarding on impossible. I never questioned the engineering side of things.

LeinsterDub

Grandeeod wrote: »

Politically unlikely boarding on impossible. I never questioned the engineering side of things.

And I never suggested anything of the political side you just sidelined the discussion.

Grandeeod

I see there's editing of posts to suit agendas. Bottom line lads if the money isn't provided you can talk all day long about your plans and wishes. Politics is the most important part of any Metro plan. So far politics has failed to deliver.