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

Sponge Bob

Withdrawn !

Cathaoirleach

Assuming Metro North has now been scrapped, and that Luas BXD is the only project the State can afford, what will happen to the €500m secured loan for Metro North from the EIB?

And what about the investors Metro Express and the Celtic Metro Group? Are they just going to be left high and dry?

bk

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Time to find out how the City of Rennes in France with the same population catchment as the Northside (excepting a sizeable airport) can order up a brand new underground(mainly) 12km+ line and contract the whole job out to Siemens....including Rolling stock....for just north of €200m when we could not even build a green line tram on existing track for that in the 1990s.

It seems 200m is only for the rolling stock, managing the project etc., but doesn't actually include the cost of building the line:

It was confirmed in July 2008 that €1bn will be spent on creating a second route as well as an additional €1,206m on adding to the existing infrastructure.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-rennes-metro-line-b.html

Can't find more info on what the additional infrastructure is, but it sounds to be roughly the same cost as MN.

Sponge Bob

Yep agreed BK, withdrew original comment!

lods

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

Assuming Metro North has now been scrapped, and that Luas BXD is the only project the State can afford, what will happen to the €500m secured loan for Metro North from the EIB?

And what about the investors Metro Express and the Celtic Metro Group? Are they just going to be left high and dry?

One less loan we need. I find it hard to believe either of the PPP groups would
have been able to get funding , considering it was on the basis of Ireland INC paying it back, not a good bet.

Sponge Bob

€500m is around the cost of Building BXD and the relevant future MN enabling works (mainly a giant station box at OCB) like I said last week or two. Looks like a move to repurpose this funding tranche is well underway.

lucernarian

lods wrote: »

One less loan we need. I find it hard to believe either of the PPP groups would
have been able to get funding , considering it was on the basis of Ireland INC paying it back, not a good bet.

Thing is, a PPP based on a large long-term and viable project which raises constant revenue should attract market interest (even if the soverign is not considered a wise investment, I figured). That fella who owns Hutchinson-Whampoa, Li Ka-shing, is interested in buying in Irish infrastructure and ports in particular. I'm thought there are people out there who might pony up to have the lease on metro north for 30 years

strassenwo!f

Sponge Bob wrote: »

€500m is around the cost of Building BXD and the relevant future MN enabling works (mainly a giant station box at OCB) like I said last week or two. Looks like a move to repurpose this funding tranche is well underway.

You mean "giant station boxes", don't you Bob

Sponge Bob

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You mean "giant station boxes", don't you Bob

How about a Giant Non Interconnected Twin Box Strassenwolf

lods

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Thing is, a PPP based on a large long-term and viable project which raises constant revenue should attract market interest (even if the soverign is not considered a wise investment, I figured). That fella who owns Hutchinson-Whampoa, Li Ka-shing, is interested in buying in Irish infrastructure and ports in particular. I'm thought there are people out there who might pony up to have the lease on metro north for 30 years

is it not 100 years now:eek:

monument

busman wrote: »

Metro North and DART projects unlikely to go ahead: Varadkar

http://www.irishexaminer.ie/breakingnews/ireland/metro-north-and-dart-projects-unlikely-to-go-ahead-varadkar-502111.html

No money = No surprise

Misleading headline.

He did not say that. He kept to the line from a week or two ago, that is, that only one of the three projects will go ahead. Here's the Dail records of what he said on that day, live in the Dail and via written answers, if you search there's also other mentions by others...

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2011-04-20.270.0&s=metro+north#g271.0

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2011-04-20.653.0&s=metro+north#g654.0.q

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2011-04-20.1065.0&s=metro+north#g1067.0.r

Aard wrote: »

BXD won't even go into his constituency though.

It will serve it indirectly by allowing the interchange.

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

Assuming Metro North has now been scrapped, and that Luas BXD is the only project the State can afford, what will happen to the €500m secured loan for Metro North from the EIB?

And what about the investors Metro Express and the Celtic Metro Group? Are they just going to be left high and dry?

There is no €500m secured loan. European Investment Bank only gave preliminary approval for the loan for Metro North. Any loan for any other project would have to start from scratch.

Leaving the bidders out high and dry would -- for better or worse -- be the end to the PPP process for some time. The point is that they take some risk, not an insane amount.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The O'Connell Bridge station is not a "main central station" in the sense that one might understand it in other cities, i.e.,

Sorry for any confusion, I just mean a main central station on Metro North. That is to say, it is one of the main stations on the line and one of the most central.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

...It is commonplace for interchange stations to have multiple levels....

It is common place for nearly all underground and many over ground stations to have multiple levels. That's an indisputable fact. If that's something you want to debate, I'm sorry and I'm not being smart, I'm just not debating something as simple as that.

Underground stations often have multiple levels... one of the only type which have not is ones right under street level, like the older lines on the Budapest Metro, and some others where there are long stairwells etc.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What I think one would have to go farther to see is a non-interchange station of the scale of the proposed O'Connell Bridge station. I'm sure I've never seen one, and I strongly doubt if you have either, despite your extensive travels.

"Modest" and "middle of the road", eh? - Are you sure?

Hollywood / Highland on the LA Metro. Single line. Enter at street level, go down one level, turn around, go down another level to the ticket hall, go down again to the platforms.

That's three levels underground.

For its location and importance, the O'Connell Bridge stop is a normal, run of the mill station.

The LA example is the first one that comes to mind because it's one of my most used Metro Stations -- been on working trips to LA and stayed in the same area a few times. I think the station at the end of that line is a little more elaborate, and that only interchanges with BRT. Also, if you want to look into it further, there's some very elaborate stations on other metros which make the planned Metro North stations look like BTR stops. These range from over the top examples such as Stockholm or more down to earth examples such as LA and DC etc.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Underground stations obviously need all these things. However, the standard arrangement which I've seen for non-interchange stations has been a level below street level for the stuff you mention (ticket machines, maps of the area, timetables, a few shops, etc.) and a level beneath that again for the platforms, i.e. a two-level station. (Occasionally I've come across non-interchange stations where there is another level, for example to accomodate a situation like the one that Cormac Rabbitte was talking about on this thread - i.e. where trains on the same "line" are stacked: Frankfurt's U4 would be a good example). For a non-interchange station, the station at O'Connell Bridge does seem to be quite different.

You're getting all heated up about what are spaces for escalators and services.

The depth of the station depends on the depth of the line, if you want really, really long escalators, you need much larger station boxes. Or you can do what is planned and have more escalators in a smaller box.

Also, some ticket halls are at street level, some just below, and some are down one or two levels. And some platforms and ticket halls are different distances apart. There's nothing noteworthy about the stations on metro north.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, it's not small, at all. There are two 4-level station boxes, each in or around 80 metres long. Either one of these boxes would certainly be deeper and probably (in terms of overall construction area) also bigger than any other underground station on this planned Dublin metro, bar the proposed station at St. Stephen's Green. (but indeed certainly deeper and probably overall much larger than the "metro" part of that station).

I can only see 3 stores for public areas on one end... it's mainly for escalators. But what's the big deal here? Is there one? So what if it's deep? It's under a river and the line in this area is under a load of sensitive building with basements.

The station boxes are small compared to fully cut and cover boxes. The Parnell Square Stop is around as deep, possibly deeper. It's also fully cut and cover.

Saying the stop is deeper and bigger than other underground stops isn't saying much given that there's currently only six planned station on the tunnelled section of the line. Anyway, what do you expect? The station is likely to be one the busiest stations on the line, it serves key areas, and can be used as an interchange with Luas and Dart.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yet the RPA are planning to build two (yes, that's right - 2) such boxes and, instead of the platforms being part of these boxes (as they usually are in other cities) they are to be an additional cost. I fully understand that this is of necessity, in order to link the two boxes, but it is a considerable extra cost, nonetheless.

Sorry, if I'm sounding snappy here, but again: No!

Platforms are only part of station boxes where the station is fully cut and cover. The station here is partly mined to minimise disruption (nobody was going to agree to full cut and cover on OCS or anywhere in the area).

Where platforms are part of station boxes, the station boxes are much, much large. The scale of open construction is much larger.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In terms of the amount of construction materials and construction manpower required, what is effectively being proposed for O'Connell Bridge is (i) an eight(8)-level non-interchange station and (ii) a mined section to produce a pair of platforms which, as you pointed out, also take up a considerable area (and will thus consume a lot of manpower and construction materials). And all of this to provide just one stop on Dublin's proposed metro.

If you want to count the stairwells and services levels, it's more like five levels. It's not a big deal for such a station, as explained above.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The metro routes presented in the original consultation included two stations in the relevant area (at Trinity and O'Connell Street). I've seen plenty of statements that the advantages of the later O'Connell Bridge idea were primarily related to cost, but none to the effect that the advantages were related to impact on the city....

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "impact", as there would be positive eventual impacts associated with two stations over just one (e.g. by improving catchment efficiency when the project is complete), and negative impacts (on traffic, local businesses, etc.) during construction of station boxes.

For my part, I really don't know if the negative impact would be greater or smaller, or about the same, with: (a) a station box on O'Connell Street and a station box on Westmoreland Street, to provide the city with one metro station, versus (b) the earlier idea of a station box on O'Connell Street and a station box in or around College Green, to provide the city with two. These are all very busy areas, and the city is certainly going to see a few tears shed along the way, before the metro comes into operation. Perhaps the RPA documentation might throw some light on this?

Going full cut and cover on College Green and O'Connell Street or anywhere would be far more disruptive than a mined station. Even without full cut and cover, the impacts are reduced by not having a stop in a smaller space like College Green. As for costs: The current plan has one platform area, having two stations would require two platform areas.

The RPA has slide shows of how they will manage the construction in phases at both ends of the bridge. You can find the links vie the Metro North page on rpa.ie and a while back on their Facebook page.

Sponge Bob

The Parnell Sq and OCB stations are just a tad Epic Monument but the extra levels are in part related to their overall planned depth.

runway16

I think its pretty obvious how all this is going to pan out.

One thing not so widely mentioned is LV's remark that a fourth option would be be considered in addition to BXD, MN and DU - A DART extension to Swords and Dublin Airport.

We are going to end up with an El cheapo DART extension to the airport and swords and BXD. He did say that "at least" one would be developed, and according to the universal law of governmental "management of expectations", when they deliver not one but two cheaper options, they will be seen as the proverbial best thing since sliced bread.....:mad:

That way, FG are seen to make good on their commitments to voters in Dublin North, deliver a highly visible luas extension in town and spend the least amount of cash possible.

I am dismayed at the inclusion of the fourth option. It is almost as if to say that MN isnt a new transport corridor, but is only an airport link. It gives more fuel to the likes to Myers and Mcdonald.

Additionally, the service will be sub-optimal on the DART extension because of lack of capacity on the Northern Line. The other alternative is to branch off at Cabra and run it through Finglas and Ballymun, but I cant see where your going to fit an alignment in there without going underground.

While great for Airport / Swords, it does sweet FA for anywhere else on the Proposed MN corridor......

Sponge Bob

The Heavy Rail spur to the Airport idea has been around for probably longer than I have. It has been discounted in the past on the grounds of lack of track capacity from c.Baldoyle - Connolly.

12 Years ago this was in the Indo. Nothing has changed regarding the BOLD bits below.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/heavy-rail-line-link-to-airport-among-proposals-416174.html

The Indo referes to the first lot of strategic planning guidelines ever prepared foe the Dublin Region ...ie this.

http://www.rpg.ie/guidelines/SPGGDA-Web-FullDocument.pdf

The Greater Dublin Area rail network consists essentially of four lines:
• Coastal north via Drogheda towards Belfast;
• Coastal south via Wicklow towards Wexford and Rosslare;
• Inland west via Maynooth towards Sligo and Galway; and
• Inland west via Kildare towards Cork, with a branch via Athy to Waterford.
All the rail services in the Greater Dublin Area, except the Kildare route, pass through
Connolly station and the capacity of the section of track immediately to the north of
that station effectively constrains the whole system. In terms of the number of trains
that can be accommodated, the capacity of the DART north and the Dundalk services is
fully utilised while that of the Maynooth line, up to the junction north of Connolly, is
only about two-thirds utilised.

Interestingly they suggested this, a sort of sawn off heavy rail MN

A heavy rail link to the Airport. This would potentially provide a better capacity and
an enhanced level of service than the proposed LRT link, though the schemes could
be complementary. It could also service the Swords area, which has been identified
as requiring significantly enhanced public transport facilities. The connection could
be provided through a branch from the Maynooth line serving Swords and Dublin
Airport, with a possible city terminus at the new Barrow Street station, utilising the
proposed eastern link. Alternatively or additionally, main line trains on the Belfast
line could be routed via Swords and the Airport, possibly to the former terminus at
Broadstone, which might be connected into the LRT network. This would then
release capacity on the coastal DART route that, in the longer term, might facilitate
the further development of the coastal towns of Fingal, especially Balbriggan. It
would also have significant national advantages in bringing Dublin Airport onto the
national rail system.

mgmt

Would it be possible to widen the Loop Line Bridge to 3 tracks between Conolly and Pearse St Stations. Maybe redesign it during the rebuild to make it less ugly.

mgmt

Another crayon idea:

Build a Light Rail Spur to the Airport and Swords off the Northern Line using Irish Gauge trams. Then route the trams to Spencer Dock and across the Samuel Beckett Bridge and then up Lombard Street to St. Stephens Green.

Transportuser09

mgmt wrote: »

Would it be possible to widen the Loop Line Bridge to 3 tracks between Conolly and Pearse St Stations. Maybe redesign it during the rebuild to make it less ugly.

I seem to remember this being mooted before but there were concerns over it penetrating the grounds of the Custom House and Trinity College. With the amount of CPOs needed I cant see how would be viable, interesting thought though. In any case capacity on the Drogheda line would need to be increased anyway if this was to reach its full potential.

sdanseo

mgmt wrote: »

Would it be possible to widen the Loop Line Bridge to 3 tracks between Conolly and Pearse St Stations. Maybe redesign it during the rebuild to make it less ugly.

Impossible. The bridge itself could be done, but the line runs far too close to neighbouring buldings, most of which are hotels and businesses.

mgmt wrote:

Another crayon idea:

Build a Light Rail Spur to the Airport and Swords off the Northern Line using Irish Gauge trams. Then route the trams to Spencer Dock and across the Samuel Beckett Bridge and then up Lombard Street to St. Stephens Green.

The only stations that could really be considered as an interchange between this tram idea and the IÉ network are Malahide and Clongriffin. Clongriffin is the only one with the extra platform space in situ. In fact, a third platform at Malahide was ruled out by residents objection (selfish fúcking bastards - I live minutes away and wouldn't mind in the slightest) so it's fair to say that a LUAS or similar projects would be blown out of the water.

Presuming Clongriffin was chosen, a route from there to the airport isn't hard to find. Through Clongriffin and Belmayne obviously, then you have all the waste land near Belcamp. Bridge over the R107, bridge over the M1, Bridge over the R132 followed by a ramp section into an underground station OR a stilted overgound station somewhere on the airport grounds.

You'll have the problem of yet another isolated length of LUAS which is not, and appears never to be connected directly to the rest of the LUAS network, only by rail. Even with an integrated ticketing scheme in place, that's lunacy in that it flies in the face of learning from the mistakes of not joining Luas A and B up in the first place.

I would personally favour a heavy rail spur from Malahide or Clongriffin but finding a route without tunnelling is nigh on impossible from either.

Altogether a very mish-mashed solution to a three-decade old problem which should hae been sorted...you guessed it...three decades ago.

D.L.R.

mgmt wrote: »

Would it be possible to widen the Loop Line Bridge to 3 tracks between Conolly and Pearse St Stations. Maybe redesign it during the rebuild to make it less ugly.

Looking at some other rail viaducts, the loopline's actually got a bit of historical charm to it.

Chicago:


London:


Dublin Loop line:

runway16

The single largest thing that could be done to enhance the appreance of that part of the City Centre is to tear the loop line bridge down! ;-)

At least they could paint it a lighter colour... ;-)

Back to the possible DART extension, an alignment from Portmarnock to the east of Swords town would be trouble free, but we would end up with a station somewhat remote from Swords Town Centre. The section to the airport would likely not be too difficult either, but a tunnel section of perhaps 1KM would be needed in the airport campus.

It would not be terribly expensive.

But, we are still left with the issue of inadequate track capacity on the Northern Line, which would produce a crap service for each branch of the DART line - Howth, Malahide and the Airport. The only way this will work is Quad tracking the line to the airport split at least.

Those of you know who are familiar with the area immeditalely to the North of Connolly will know that would not be an easy solution.

The other option is branching off the Maynooth Line. To avoid large tunnelled sections, one would have to branch off the line in the vicinity of "Phoenix Park" Station and follow an alignment paralleling the M50 to the airport.

Hardly direct - and no other commuting benefits except perhaps the possibility of stations serving the business parks located between the N2 and N3.

Such a route would be completely unattractive for Swords commuters too due the indirect routing.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Zebra3

runway16 wrote: »

But, we are still left with the issue of inadequate track capacity on the Northern Line, which would produce a crap service for each branch of the DART line - Howth, Malahide and the Airport. The only way this will work is Quad tracking the line to the airport split at least.

Those of you know who are familiar with the area immeditalely to the North of Connolly will know that would not be an easy solution.

Simple.

Make Howth-Howth Junction a shuttle service.

D.L.R.

runway16 wrote: »

The single largest thing that could be done to enhance the appreance of that part of the City Centre is to tear the loop line bridge down! ;-)

This would be the part of town with such architectural gems as Liberty Hall, Hawkins House and the Post Building.. :rolleyes:

Re Dart spur.. no business case really. Tunnel coaches are faster, so there's no point building a slow railway route in parallel.

Aard

Zebra3 wrote: »

Make Howth-Howth Junction a shuttle service.

I've often thought of this myself. All local opposition aside, do you think it'd work WRT reducing congestion on the mainline? I imagine that since fewer trains would be branching off to Howth that more of the line gets used for continuous service. If that's the case, then all that stands in the way is tradition.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Re Dart spur.. no business case really. Tunnel coaches are faster, so there's no point building a slow railway route in parallel.

I think that you're right in that for anybody in Dublin, the AirDart (totally trade-marking that!) is relatively useless compared to the PT, or indeed MN. OTOH, it would be quite useful to (eventually) run a through service from DUB to Cork/Galway/Limerick/Belfast. There was a recent announcement from Brussels that stipulates that in the future all main European airports should be connected to the heavy rail network.

runway16

That is really the crux of the matter - the connection to longer distance mainline rail.

Tourists are generally far more at ease navigating a foreign rail network than busses.

Having Howth as a shuttle service is one part solution, but simply out, the Northern line needs more capacity anyway for future extensions of DART service northwards. With a quad track in place, it would be possible to run an "express" service, perhaps only stopping at Swords and Howth Junction.

I really think the idea is a non-starter unless there is some measure, either extra track or sidings to increase capacity on the Northern Line.

mgmt

Taken from a letter from Irish Rail to Fingal CoCo - January 2011

Promote the electrification of the Maynooth Line, the grade separation of level crossings on the Maynooth Line, the three/four tracking of the Northern Line from the City Centre and a DART link: from the Northern Line at Clongriffin to serve Dublin Airport


A DART link: from Clongriffin to the Airport is a high priority for Iarnr6d Eireann as outlined in our submission to Fingal County Council on 11 th June 2010 (see attached letter for reference).

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Planning/DevelopmentPlanSubmissionsPhase3/Submissions/AM0032/31663507224311E0BCE8001D92D1234E.pdf

My train/tram idea might just be realistic.

sdanseo

mgmt wrote: »

My train/tram idea might just be realistic.

Wait a second...IÉ forward planning and common sense?!?!

*rubs eyes*

I'm speechless. This is good news.

BrianD

mgmt wrote: »

My train/tram idea might just be realistic.

This is unbelievable stuff and dated only in past few months. Where is our central plan for rail transport development? We now have two state bodies effectively competing with each other and duplicating resources which are now very scarce.

If this goes DART spur ahead then it will serve a big chunk of Metro Norths suburban customers which makes the MN project less attractive. If MN goes ahead then the DART spur is pointless as the Clongriffen-Airport DART catchment area will be well served by MN on one side and the existing DART on the other.

There's nothing in the Iarnrod Eireann correspondence that doesn't make sense in isolation. However, it can't be considered in isolation when there are other bodies, such as the RPA, who have other proposals that are advancing.

Perhaps Leo can do us a favour and come up with a definitive rail map for Dublin and a timetable for each of the components.

Sponge Bob

The Airport Dart spur may only be a crayon project in IE, it would be entirely the right thing to "protect" the alignment as the saying goes. NAMA owns most of any such alignment nowadays as it happens.

Aard

Should be easy to CPO so if there's a few pesky housing estates in the way!