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

Idbatterim

expectationlost wrote: »

Dublin City Gazette says New Metro North hopes derailed by Shane Ross https://issuu.com/robheigh/docs/dublincityfeb2?utm_source=2017W5_subscribers&utm_campaign=Digest&utm_medium=email qoutes him as saying little hope of accelerating due to amount of planning work that needs to be done.

just another reason to go with original scheme ... rugby World Cup for 2033 announced in November. Farcical we most likely won't even have a rail connection to a 40,000,000 plus I expect airport at that stage ...

BonnieSituation

We'll have no issue hosting the world cup. New Zealand could host it alone ffs. And they don't have roads.

"Too much planning had to be done"... This is by far the best reason ever for not doing something.

Peregrine

Ross could be the worst transport minister I've seen in a long time.

marno21

Peregrine wrote: »

Ross could is be the worst transport minister I've seen in a long time.

Fixed that.

Not sure how he could be any worse. Has no idea what's going on in his department, has done nothing in the last year, 2.6bn more available for capital investment that he apparently has no interest in securing, major transport difficulties in the capital, Cork, and Galway that he has no interest in sorting, road deaths on the rise etc.

He has done NOTHING since coming into the position bar take a few holidays and give out to Robert Troy and the likes for not attending meetings. He has presided over a record low number of projects in planning/starting whilst the transport situation gets worse. Total incompetence. With Brexit and cheap money now is a great time to move forward and modernise but no, that'd be progress.

lateconnection

Original MN has planning permission until 2021.
They should just scrap the 'new' MN and go with the original, saves time and don't have to go through the public consultation and planning processes all over again. Absolute no-brainer.

Idbatterim

The way this has been handled. Has been a sham from start to finish. But given the way it's played out. It's becoming more and more obvious, even to those morons surely. That going with the original scheme is the only sensible option now...

LeinsterDub

Deedsie wrote: »

Surprised no one has sent a letter to the Irish Times about it. Handy one for Fine Gael to hang Minister Ross out to dry.

What's the point. As Pink Floyd once said
"All in all he's just another brick in the wall" . A wall on failure going back to the 70's

LeinsterDub

Was considering a separate thread for this but decided against it.

The National Transport Authority (NTA) is looking at extending the proposed Metro North system, planned to run between Swords and St Stephen's Green via Dublin Airport, to take in the Luas Green Line to Sandyford.

Bray Head

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Was considering a separate thread for this but decided against it.

The National Transport Authority (NTA) is looking at extending the proposed Metro North system, planned to run between Swords and St Stephen's Green via Dublin Airport, to take in the Luas Green Line to Sandyford.

What does this mean?

Luas (light rail) all the way to Swords?

Or closing down the Luas line and making it like Metro North (heavy rail)?  I really hope it is not the former......

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

What does this mean?

Luas (light rail) all the way to Swords?

Or closing down the Luas line and making it like Metro North (heavy rail)?  I really hope it is not the former......

I think it means MN is standard gauge so it can use the track from Ranalagh to Sandyford. The tunnel from SSG to Ranalagh would be underground. It gives the option for the green route to be diverted/extended east or west at the canal (unlikely).

Can the overhead Luas wires power the larger MN vehicles?

I would prefer that MN was Dart compatible.

plodder

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We'll have no issue hosting the world cup. New Zealand could host it alone ffs. And they don't have roads.

"Too much planning had to be done"... This is by far the best reason ever for not doing something.

A European rugby world cup attracts a lot more visitors than a southern hemisphere one it seems. The last one in NZ attracted 133,000 visitors whereas the last one in England and Wales attracted 406,000 who stayed on avg. 14 days, generating 2.3 billion in economic activity. And that excludes the UK residents who might travel over here obviously.

And whatever about Shane Ross, I feel unless it was going through his constituency he would always be luke warm about it, I can't understand why north Dublin TDs seem to be so passive about the subject.

loyatemu

Idbatterim wrote: »

just another reason to go with original scheme ... rugby World Cup for 2033 announced in November. Farcical we most likely won't even have a rail connection to a 40,000,000 plus I expect airport at that stage ...

RWC is in 2023 - we definitely won't have a connection to the airport.

Idbatterim

Yeah I meant 2023. They could have original metro north in place by then if they were in any way bothered...

xper

Bray Head wrote: »

What does this mean?

Luas (light rail) all the way to Swords?

Or closing down the Luas line and making it like Metro North (heavy rail)?  I really hope it is not the former......

There's nothing much new in that article regarding the very long term plans envisaged for Metro North from the outset. Metro North has always been light rail with future connection to the Luas green line always anticipated. The original off-street sections of the green line were built to metro loading gauge* standards and the turnback/loop section at the St Stephen's Green end in the Metro North railway order allows for future continuation of the tunnel without interruption of services to emerge further south and join with the existing green line somewhere north of Ranelagh.

Metro North vehicles would essentially look like very long Luas trams. However, on a joined up Metro North/Green line route, they would be operating at higher average speeds on entirely off-street, segregated lines (with as few level crossings as possible, political cost-cutting allowing).

So yes, Metro, not Luas. Heavy rail/DART would be a completely different proposal from an engineering and delivered service perspective.



*Note Luas red line and Luas green line (and Metro North) have the same track gauge. This allows the current tram inventory to be moved from one line to the other when required, contrary to popular urban myth. But they have different loading gauges. Metro vehicles would not be able to use the red line (and possibly not the Green line section south of Sandyford - I'm uncertain if the metro loading gauge was maintained on that extension). The extensive on-street sections of the Red Line really preclude Metro type services anyway so it made no sense to enforce the wider bends and wider gap between tracks of the metro loading gauge and just take up more street space doing so for no future benefit.

LeinsterDub

http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/northsidewest/articles/2017/02/06/4134318-hopes-of-an--earlier-metro-north-dashed/

Deptment of transport say it's unpossible to start MN in 2019.

Unfortunately, there is little scope to accelerate the project and sadly not by the two years mentioned in recent reports,” a spokesperson said.

“At present, we are looking at construction commencing in 2021 and it would not be possible to accelerate that to 2019 in view of the significant body of work that must be done in terms of planning and the timeframes required for consultation before construction can commence.”

I believe they need the extra 2 years to figure out how to deliver a high speed metro that will also run at street level through a residential area :rolleyes:

Idbatterim

I cant wait for the meeting and public consultations, Ill be going there on the attack. They've gone beyond with the incompetence / piss taking... This applies to MN and DU...

lateconnection

This is taken from the EIS of original MN. Outlines the difficulties of overground running in Ballymun on page 9.

http://www.nra.ie/tii-library/railway-orders/eis-metro-north/EIS%20Metro%20North%20Non-Technical%20Summary.pdf

They will be forced to go for cut and cover in Ballymun, the residents objected to surface running before, and I would say that they will again.

The public consultation for this will be interesting alright.

Grandeeod

More years of redesigning and consultations.......then another excuse will appear and we'll have more years of redesigning and consultations. Meanwhile.....

Idbatterim

its so hilarious, the slightest bad news they can jettison it and propose metro inferior, what about the endless good news you keep delivering FG, or does it not work that way? projects can only be downgraded given half a chance?!

Idbatterim

I could drag up the post , I said it last November, those f**cking cowards, should have said it was the right project, just not the right time to proceed (for them politically). Before DU pp lapsed and I mean well before (because it was far more time sensitive than MN planning wise), a very quick review should have taken place, to see if any of the proposed cost reductions (see the government say that as if its a good thing, to get the public to buy it, value for money, you see) :rolleyes: Id be calling it hmmmm, "project compromising or dimishing"....

The most important thing is that the sham proposal to connect to the airport via the massive long luas route was ruled out. I was delighted when I heard that. That's the door shut in their face on that. Next thing, simply sit back and wait for the higher growth than expected, which will force MNR back to MN original scheme spec i.e. 90m platforms etc.

To us its obvious at this stage, that the new project is worse value for money, never mind all of the other issues not going with original metro superior gave us. Notably it has planning up to 2023!!!!

Middle Man

I don't want to annoy people with design changes, but this is what I'd do...

A. Get on with the DART Inter-connector, Kildare Route Project (Phase 2), DART Extensions to Maynooth and Hazelhatch (No delays - start procurement now);

B. Devise a new Metro Scheme to link up all of the city's universities as well as the two main central shopping areas - Initial phase would include 11 stations -

1. UCD Belfield
2. Donnybrook
3. Herbert
4. Wilton
5. Grafton (escalator links to Stephen's Green DART Station & Trinity)
6. Jervis
7. Grangegorman
8. Botanic (link to new Phibsboro Junction Station (DART and Docklands Spur))
9. DCU
10. Griffith
11. Ballymun

Spec - Light Rail twin bore tunnel with stations consisting of 120m screened platforms accessed from street level by escalators and lifts.

C. North City Rail Tunnel - North of Clontarf Road to Coolock Junction (surface station north of former N32) - Surface mainline link from Coolock Junction to Malahide (including Enterprise and Northern Commuter) - surface DART Link to Airport. Due to the use of diesel trains, no stations can be constructed underground between Clontarf Road and Coolock Junction - however, such a link would allow a full upgrade of the current northern DART Line to metro standard with trains every 6-8 minutes each way. DART trains to airport every 6-8 minutes each way to utilise DART Inter-connector Tunnel to as far as Inchicore. Both the northern and airport DART services would combine to give a service headway of 3-4 minutes each way under the south city centre. Concentrations of higher rise developments must take precedence in the vicinity of some existing northside DART stations as well as existing stations along the Kildare Line.

ncounties

Frustrated at the laughable situation we find ourselves in (Dublin Airport Passengers 19% above 2008 levels, Fingal County fastest growing County in Ireland, and a 30-40% reduction in capacity in the newly proposed Metro North Project), I have created a Facebook Page and Petition.

To find this, just search "MetroNorthDublin" on Facebook, and like, share, and sign the petition linked. I have seen others in the past hear mention such publicity stunts are required, but I haven't seen any created.

Please don't think I am naive enough to think this will change anything, but it might get more visibility to the blatant bull being shared by some media outlets.

Idbatterim

Please don't think I am naive enough to think this will change anything, but it might get more visibility to the blatant bull being shared by some media outlets.

The media seem to be complicit with the government in this sham. Fair play to you! The only way they ever do something here is when there is a crisis or they are shamed into it...

dublinman1990

Will this proposed extension to Sandyford defeat the purpose of it being called MN in the first place?

The original MN PP should be the plan that has interpreted here as the way to go for a long time since the process had already started.

But no; it seems like living in a country like Ireland does leave us being short changed for trying to get anything done to help it's long term progress.

Idbatterim

in hindsight calling it metro north was a bad idea "shure what a european capital of over a 1,000,000 need a fancy metro for"? :rolleyes: Call it luas north, if we arent going to get the original scheme, Id call it luas north... Probably a far easier sell to the ignorant, media etc...

lateconnection

Idbatterim wrote: »

The media seem to be complicit with the government in this sham. Fair play to you! The only way they ever do something here is when there is a crisis or they are shamed into it...

Totally agree, I am open to correction, but in all the articles in the media about MN since they announced that it was to be redesigned, I have not found one that's says that they need planning permission again and that the 'new' MN will result in a huge reduction in capacity and longer journey times.

Idbatterim

Totally agree, I am open to correction, but in all the articles in the media about MN since they announced that it was to be redesigned, I have not found one that's says that they need planning permission again and that the 'new' MN will result in a huge reduction in capacity and longer journey times.

They dont have a clue about the project to be honest, which is a disgrace. If someone or several of us here, could piece together a proper piece on the history of this scheme, the absolute joke of some of the cost savings, the political opportunism. It could be submitted to the papers and ask why isnt this being questioned. I think the work would have to be done for them, because they simply dont have a clue...

Logue no2

It was always the intention to convert the green line to metro, this isn't news.

murphaph

Logue no2 wrote: »

It was always the intention to convert the green line to metro, this isn't news.

It is to these journalists with their 5 minute attention spans.

marno21

It also deflects the attention away from the continued kicking the can down the road and the lack of ambition to actually build these projects within a respectable timeframe and to the right standard (capacity and running time wise).

MJohnston

Dublin Inquirer would be good to get onto with requests to do a piece on Metro North, they're really good at investigating this stuff and putting together solid articles about it.

Grandeeod

Logue no2 wrote: »

It was always the intention to convert the green line to metro, this isn't news.

That intention hasn't been on the radar since FF stalled the luas project in 1997. After many many rediculous Dail debates about over ground or underground via the city centre, we ended up with a Green line built to a metro clearance, no connection between the red and green lines and now a connection that was never originally envisaged.

In 2005 and the big T21 plan, nothing was mentioned about upgrading the Green line to a metro. It was conveniently forgotten because the original compromise was a political fudge. Now the NTA are revisiting this fudge so things can be complicated and delayed even further.

xper

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Will this proposed extension to Sandyford defeat the purpose of it being called MN in the first place?

The names of major planning and construction projects usually have little or nothing with how they are branded and referred too after services start and they can go true several changes during the process. Luas Cross-City was Luas BXD for years. Dart Underground was the interconnector. Its irrelevant.

Remember the Swords to City Centre was just one of three metro lines that were being envisaged. Metro West went well into planning before being scrapped. This extension of Metro North and upgrade of the Luas green line is/was known as Metro South.

lateconnection wrote: »

Totally agree, I am open to correction, but in all the articles in the media about MN since they announced that it was to be redesigned, I have not found one that's says that they need planning permission again and that the 'new' MN will result in a huge reduction in capacity and longer journey times.

Well don't rely on the nonsense that passes as journalism in this country. The existing Railway Order can only apply to the submitted plans that it is based upon. You change the plans in any significant way, you need permission to make those changes. And if you shorten the station platforms from 90m to 60m that alone is both a significant change to the design and an implicit c.33% reduction in the maximum capacity of the system.

Zebra3

plodder wrote: »

And whatever about Shane Ross, I feel unless it was going through his constituency he would always be luke warm about it, I can't understand why north Dublin TDs seem to be so passive about the subject.

Because they're not being hounded by their voters to build it.

LeinsterDub

High level offical claims MN a cert for next year

marno21

LeinsterDub wrote: »

High level offical claims MN a cert for next year

If true, he's going to have to find a way to kill Shane Ross. Ross sounds at this stage like he'll fight to the death for MN to go ahead as New Metro North.

If Donohue believes in MN so much why didn't he start it when he was MTTAS??

jd

LeinsterDub wrote: »

High level offical claims MN a cert for next year

It would have to be the originall design as they don't have planning permission for "Optimised" (spit) Metro North

marno21

jd wrote: »

It would have to be the originall design as they don't have planning permission for "Optimised" (spit) Metro North

It'd be easier if Ross started referring to the original proper scheme as Metro North and the new ****tier one as Luas North. Seeing as that's basically what the new one is.

It'd also be a start if the Minister for Transport actually knew about transport issues in the country and had a mentality outside of Stepaside and its Garda station.

lateconnection

I would say the original is going ahead now, Ross can say what he likes about building the inferior 'new' metro, but with rapid growth in airport passenger numbers and the city choking on congestion, the rest of the government must know that at this stage, opening it in 2027 with a lower capacity to save a pittance would be ridiculous.

marno21

Ross impersonating transport in Dublin.. on his knees.

lucernarian

The pride of Ireland, a wonderful bunch of lads. Visionaries of the future...

Dyr

Idbatterim

Wow. The reasons they say in article are obvious to us. I just wonder are they also aware, that there won't be any cost savings with inflation and They will look like a right set of fools when an inferior version is delivered for more money ...

MJohnston

Metro North really ought to be taken out of the purview of the DoT anyway. It's vital for housing and economic development and all those other headline-y things. Just sideline Ross and tell him to do one.

cgcsb

The whole "optimised" thing has obviously been rubbished since population projections from the 2006 census on which the original mn was based have now been exceeded. Passenger growth projections at the airport have also been exceeded all despite the recent recession. So there really is no reason to skimp on the design. The platform length reduction is a particular failing, lengthening underground platforms will cost a fortune. It'd make sense politically to stick mn in this years budget in October, ties in nicely with the completion of bxd and the impression of a continuing issuance of goodies.

marno21

cgcsb wrote: »

The whole "optimised" thing has obviously been rubbished since population projections from the 2006 census on which the original mn was based have now been exceeded. Passenger growth projections at the airport have also been exceeded all despite the recent recession. So there really is no reason to skimp on the design. The platform length reduction is a particular failing, lengthening underground platforms will cost a fortune. It'd make sense politically to stick mn in this years budget in October, ties in nicely with the completion of bxd and the impression of a continuing issuance of goodies.

At present, it's a possibility the Government won't last the week so things could change very quickly

Bray Head

MJohnston wrote: »

Metro North really ought to be taken out of the purview of the DoT anyway. It's vital for housing and economic development and all those other headline-y things. Just sideline Ross and tell him to do one.

There is a very good case for giving transport infrastructure management over to a dedicated body with its own funding stream that did not depend on political sentiment and the state of the public finances.

This would inevitably mean 'privatising public services' but might mean that they are actually built in the first place.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

There is a very good case for giving transport infrastructure management over to a dedicated body with its own funding stream that did not depend on political sentiment and the state of the public finances.

This would inevitably mean 'privatising public services' but might mean that they are actually built in the first place.

But is this not happening anyway?

Who does the design, and who does the build? It is a long time since those in the public pay designed or built anything.

The only 'public' bit is who pays, and who takes the risk.

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

But is this not happening anyway?

Who does the design, and who does the build?  It is a long time since those in the public pay designed or built anything.

The only 'public' bit is who pays, and who takes the risk.

No. Large transport infrastructure gets squeezed through a process which involves the sign-off of several politicians.

This is not the case for grid infrastructure, by comparison.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

No. Large transport infrastructure gets squeezed through a process which involves the sign-off of several politicians.

This is not the case for grid infrastructure, by comparison.

I think you are missing what I am saying.

All infrastructure is put out to the private sector for planning and building. It used to be we had Dublin Corpo building houses and roads. CIE building and repairing trains. Now we have those bodies organising the private sector doing these and most other tasks. This inevitably cost substantially more, and allows much less control of projects.

Just look at the scandal that surrounded the West Link bridge - built for IR£10m and sold back to the state for €500 million, having provided a healthy profit and huge traffic jams in the mean time.

That is what privatisation is all about.