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

prunudo

Don't know anything about this Rabbite fellow or Metro Dublin crowd. While it may be pie in the sky stuff surely it's good that 'Grand Scale' options are shown to the councillors so maybe they'll see that settling for the half a§sed plan that's being proposed at the moment isn't a good idea in the long run.

cgcsb

jvan wrote: »

Don't know anything about this Rabbite fellow or Metro Dublin crowd. While it may be pie in the sky stuff surely it's good that 'Grand Scale' options are shown to the councillors so maybe they'll see that settling for the half a§sed plan that's being proposed at the moment isn't a good idea in the long run.

You overestimate our councillors. They have free parking and flexi-time, this doesn't interest them.

L1011

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

Fair play to him though, at least hes trying.

And delaying actual work, and pissing taxpayers money down the drain listening to him.

prunudo

L1011 wrote: »

And delaying actual work, and pissing taxpayers money down the drain listening to him.

And building a sub standard metro with half the amount of stations, with shorter/smaller platforms and reduced capacity trains, all only to be redesigned and rebuilt because of over crowding after 10 years isn't wasting taxpayers money?

Schadenfreudia

Bajingo wrote: »

There's an alternative proposal going apparently

https://www.businesspost.ie/new-metro-system-promoters-to-seek-support-of-dublin-city-councillors/

Appropriately ambitious...the main "debate" is wonderfully summed up in this picture:

Schadenfreudia

L1011 wrote: »

And delaying actual work, and pissing taxpayers money down the drain listening to him.

Delaying what actual work?

Schadenfreudia

jvan wrote: »

And building a sub standard metro with half the amount of stations, with shorter/smaller platforms and reduced capacity trains, all only to be redesigned and rebuilt because of over crowding after 10 years isn't wasting taxpayers money?

No. That appears to be the reality of tiny minds we are stuck with. :mad:

L1011

jvan wrote: »

And building a sub standard metro with half the amount of stations, with shorter/smaller platforms and reduced capacity trains, all only to be redesigned and rebuilt because of over crowding after 10 years isn't wasting taxpayers money?

The fantasist proposal is no better

Hibbeler

Serious question. I notice that that Metro Dublin proposal is shot down here and thought of as fantasy but I was wondering if someone could explain why they think so from an actual technical point of view? If the city council keep looking at it it surely can't be that terrible of an idea

As someone who's not an expert in mass transit it looks without delving beyond the surface like a feasible way Dublin could plan to implement a full metro system as opposed to one line. And would surely give wide coverage throughout the city

Is the dismissiveness seen here down to people's personal opinions on the guy proposing it or is there an actual technical reason? Perhaps it is too much to ask for intercity commuter and mass transit trains to share the same lines or are the tunnels inappropriate or is it more the costs?

Sorry if I'm moving this thread too far away from talking about metro north

Grandeeod

Hibbeler wrote: »

Serious question. I notice that that Metro Dublin proposal is shot down here and thought of as fantasy but I was wondering if someone could explain why they think so from an actual technical point of view? If the city council keep looking at it it surely can't be that terrible of an idea

As someone who's not an expert in mass transit it looks without delving beyond the surface like a feasible way Dublin could plan to implement a full metro system as opposed to one line. And would surely give wide coverage throughout the city

Is the dismissiveness seen here down to people's personal opinions on the guy proposing it or is there an actual technical reason? Perhaps it is too much to ask for intercity commuter and mass transit trains to share the same lines or are the tunnels inappropriate or is it more the costs?

Sorry if I'm moving this thread too far away from talking about metro north

There was nothing wrong with Cormac Rabbitte's proposal over 10 years ago. It got dragged into a political/media battle and was rebutted. We even brought over Senor Melis from Spain who told us how we could build a big Metro in Dublin and quickly. Despite the Government inviting him, his ideas were quickly kicked into touch and we soldiered on like goldfish in a bowl. If anyone here wants to slag off Cormac Rabbitte, then make sure to include the others that built Metros and tried to build one in Dublin too.

The "official" stance on a Dublin metro, as quoted by the Government and its RPA minions is no more credible that anything else suggested/proposed. FACT.

xper

Hibbeler wrote: »

Serious question. I notice that that Metro Dublin proposal is shot down here and thought of as fantasy but I was wondering if someone could explain why they think so from an actual technical point of view? If the city council keep looking at it it surely can't be that terrible of an idea

I haven't given the current incarnation of Rabbit's 'plan' more than a cursory look but the crayon drawing on the front page of his website doesn't look to have changed much since he last put this forward a couple of years ago. At that time, even I was able to point out some of the obvious shortcomings of his proposed plan in this very thread

Of course, he managed to garner so much attention on that occasion that the NTA were directed to inspect his plan. They thrashed it.

As someone who's not an expert in mass transit it looks without delving beyond the surface like a feasible way Dublin could plan to implement a full metro system as opposed to one line. And would surely give wide coverage throughout the city

Anyone can draw lots of coloured lines on a map. And pretty much any set of lines on a map will look like a comprehensive transport system. You have to delve beyond the surface to evaluate it. Trouble is with Rabbit's plan, you hit the bottom as soon as you break the surface. There is nothing to it. Nothing to back up the budget headline numbers or the timelines. No evidence of any 'backers' or anyone else at all being involved other than himself.

Incidentally, I would disagree with your 'as opposed to one line' comment. I don't know if that's your own opinion or if you've picked that up from Rabbit's spin when comparing his plan to individual elements of the existing and proposed Dublin transport network. If you built Dart Underground alone, you would have a joined up network. Add the DART extensiosn and Metro North to that and you would really have something that would transform the city. The difference between these and Rabbit's plans is they have extensive real engineering and planning processes underpinning them (... just no political will!)

Is the dismissiveness seen here down to people's personal opinions on the guy proposing it or is there an actual technical reason? Perhaps it is too much to ask for intercity commuter and mass transit trains to share the same lines or are the tunnels inappropriate or is it more the costs?

At this stage, it is largely the person involved. He's been on this solo run for years. He has no credibility have been shown up for what he is before. And hence the incredulity that he be given any time by an media or public body again.

Grandeeod

xper wrote: »

I haven't given the current incarnation of Rabbit's 'plan' more than a cursory look but the crayon drawing on the front page of his website doesn't look to have changed much since he last put this forward a couple of years ago. At that time, even I was able to point out some of the obvious shortcomings of his proposed plan in this very thread

Of course, he managed to garner so much attention on that occasion that the NTA were directed to inspect his plan. They thrashed it.


Anyone can draw lots of coloured lines on a map. And pretty much any set of lines on a map will look like a comprehensive transport system. You have to delve beyond the surface to evaluate it. Trouble is with Rabbit's plan, you hit the bottom as soon as you break the surface. There is nothing to it. Nothing to back up the budget headline numbers or the timelines. No evidence of any 'backers' or anyone else at all being involved other than himself.

Incidentally, I would disagree with your 'as opposed to one line' comment. I don't know if that's your own opinion or if you've picked that up from Rabbit's spin when comparing his plan to individual elements of the existing and proposed Dublin transport network. If you built Dart Underground alone, you would have a joined up network. Add the DART extensiosn and Metro North to that and you would really have something that would transform the city. The difference between these and Rabbit's plans is they have extensive real engineering and planning processes underpinning them (... just no political will!)

At this stage, it is largely the person involved. He's been on this solo run for years. He has no credibility have been shown up for what he is before. And hence the incredulity that he be given any time by an media or public body again.

You are misrepresenting what Cormac Rabbitt originally proposed and presenting his efforts based on revised plans that tried to incorporate disentegrating plans as the arse fell out of the economy.

Read this.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/TRJ2003052100003

Sam Russell

Grandeeod wrote: »

You are misrepresenting what Cormac Rabbitt originally proposed and presenting his efforts based on revised plans that tried to incorporate disentegrating plans as the arse fell out of the economy.

Read this.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/TRJ2003052100003

Looking at that link I am fascinated by the following:

Chairman: There were no consultants.

Mr. Rabbitt: There were no consultants with the equivalent of the RPA.

Chairman: How will we possibly get through the day? This goes completely against Irish culture.

Clearly, Cormac Rabbitte thinks projects like this could be pursued in Ireland without a slew of consultants - much to the horror of the chairman.

I think that says it all.

prunudo

Too many consultants spoil the metro :pac:

hardCopy

Northside people article this morning on Metro Dublin continuing to engage with the council.

I won't embed due to size.

Schadenfreudia

hardCopy wrote: »

Northside people article this morning on Metro Dublin continuing to engage with the council.

I won't embed due to size.

Based on recent events if we ever actually get around to building a metro we should certainly be looking at driverless trains.

Sam Russell

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Based on recent events if we ever actually get around to building a metro we should certainly be looking at driverless trains.

We currently have driverless trams - for today anyway.

Schadenfreudia

Sam Russell wrote: »

We currently have driverless trams - for today anyway.

Ha ha

And we should work on keeping them that way in the longer term.....

Banjoxed

jvan wrote: »

Too many consultants spoil the metro :pac:

I think that was the idea. The late Rudi Monahan came up with a LOT of noise around the planning stage of Luas - streets to be permanently closed to pedestrians, bikes skidding on tracks etc ad nauseum. He was given plenty of platform by the newspapers and all that resulted was delay, delay, delay.

plodder

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dublin-airport-to-get-new-320m-runway-supporting-1200-jobs-during-construction-34606750.html

Hats off to the DAA. They kept the project on ice and when times were right, are able to revive it again without having to go through the whole rigmarole again. Makes for a sad comparison with Metro North.

Sam Russell

Mod: This is not the politics forum. Nor is it the place to vent your anger at other posters. Back on topic please - Metro North. Some posts are have been deleted.

Idbatterim

in terms of the new "metro north" when can we start making observations on this, 60m instead of 90m to save peanuts! This is the most moronic proposal I have heard in this country and that is some statement!

this is a 2.5,000,000,000 euro project and capacity should be reduced by one third to "save" E100,000,000! So for 4% of the total budget spend, we want to limit capacity by 33% on UNDERGROUND stations?! also how much of that 100 mill goes back to the government?


ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

if they want to lie about demand not as high as forecast during boom, despite the fact there are probably more cars on the road now, massive new development taking place, dublin airport busier than ever, as we are just emerging from the recession! Right its a joke and they are lieing, but for god sake purchase less rolling stock then, at least that can be easily rectified!!!!

cgcsb

Idbatterim wrote: »

in terms of the new "metro north" when can we start making observations on this, 60m instead of 90m to save peanuts! This is the most moronic proposal I have heard in this country and that is some statement!

That is the real clincher, whatever about shorter trains, less stations and surface running in Ballymun where there is room. The short platforms are an epic fail. This will cost more than ten times the 'saving' to fix after opening. Extending underground platforms is a very expensive task, ask London Underground, they've a hundred years experience and short platforms is one of their biggest heart aches.

Idbatterim wrote: »

if they want to lie about demand not as high as forecast during boom, despite the fact there are probably more cars on the road now, massive new development taking place, dublin airport busier than ever, as we are just emerging from the boom! Right its a joke and they are lieing, but for god sake purchase less rolling stock then, at least that can be easily rectified!!!!

That's just fudge. Dublin's population is actually expanding at a greater rate than predicted, despite the recent recession.

bk

It is great news about passengers numbers on the up and up at Dublin Airport and them going ahead with the second runway.

During the news reports about the new runway you already see lots of talk about Metro North from the DAA and public. I suspect the DAA building the second runway will put a lot of pressure on the government to build Metro North.

I suspect a lot of pressure will be coming from the DAA, IAG (BA/AL) and the general public. The government won't be able to ignore it any more and I suspect it will be the next major infrastructure to get the good ahead with Luas Cross City coming along quickly.

My only concern is this Metro North light idea! Incredibly foolish and short sighted IMO. Even if the trains are 60m at the start, all stations should be built to 90meter standard. Specially now that they are talking about a Metro South. That would just put way more passenger numbers heading to the airport.

Zubeneschamali

Idbatterim wrote: »

in terms of the new "metro north" when can we start making observations on this, 60m instead of 90m to save peanuts!

I'm not sure how to compare value of a 60m platform you never build to a 90m platform you never build.

Capacity and cost are zero in both cases, and my calculator refuses to divide by zero.

Dardania

bk wrote: »

It is great news about passengers numbers on the up and up at Dublin Airport and them going ahead with the second runway.

During the news reports about the new runway you already see lots of talk about Metro North from the DAA and public. I suspect the DAA building the second runway will put a lot of pressure on the government to build Metro North.

I suspect a lot of pressure will be coming from the DAA, IAG (BA/AL) and the general public. The government won't be able to ignore it any more and I suspect it will be the next major infrastructure to get the good ahead with Luas Cross City coming along quickly.

My only concern is this Metro North light idea! Incredibly foolish and short sighted IMO. Even if the trains are 60m at the start, all stations should be built to 90meter standard. Specially now that they are talking about a Metro South. That would just put way more passenger numbers heading to the airport.

A good portion of the passengers that are justifying the second runway are not destined for Dublin - they will be connecting to other flights.

So while as a whole the number of people that would use public transport to the city will increase, not all of the people using the second runway will need it.

Agree with you RE making it easy to upgrade from 60m to 90m in future. Sometimes it's good to take a part step than top demand the full step (and nothing happen) even if it's more costly in the long run. Do you think the 3 lane M50 would have built if it was the original plan?

cgcsb

bk wrote: »

It is great news about passengers numbers on the up and up at Dublin Airport and them going ahead with the second runway.

During the news reports about the new runway you already see lots of talk about Metro North from the DAA and public. I suspect the DAA building the second runway will put a lot of pressure on the government to build Metro North.

I suspect a lot of pressure will be coming from the DAA, IAG (BA/AL) and the general public. The government won't be able to ignore it any more and I suspect it will be the next major infrastructure to get the good ahead with Luas Cross City coming along quickly.

My only concern is this Metro North light idea! Incredibly foolish and short sighted IMO. Even if the trains are 60m at the start, all stations should be built to 90meter standard. Specially now that they are talking about a Metro South. That would just put way more passenger numbers heading to the airport.

60m platforms is a disater, it will cost billions to fix. By all means start with 60m trains but underground platforms aren't easily extended.

bk

Dardania wrote: »

A good portion of the passengers that are justifying the second runway are not destined for Dublin - they will be connecting to other flights.

Well the big increase in passenger numbers over the last two years, 15% up in the last year alone, has mostly been people destined for Dublin and Ireland in general. At the moment Dublin Airport handles very little inter-connection passengers.

Yes, you are partly right that IAG is thinking of using DA as a hub airport as an alternative to Heathrow. But that is still expected to be just a small part of the airports passenger numbers and DA is projecting big growth in passengers destined for Dublin/Ireland over the next few years.

It is still very much in the DAA's and IAG's interest (specially the Aer Lingus part) to have Metro North built.

Deedsie

bk wrote: »

Well the big increase in passenger numbers over the last two years, 15% up in the last year alone, has mostly been people destined for Dublin and Ireland in general. At the moment Dublin Airport handles very little inter-connection passengers.

Yes, you are partly right that IAG is thinking of using DA as a hub airport as an alternative to Heathrow. But that is still expected to be just a small part of the airports passenger numbers and DA is projecting big growth in passengers destined for Dublin/Ireland over the next few years.

It is still very much in the DAA's and IAG's interest (specially the Aer Lingus part) to have Metro North built.

Especially when you add the 7000 expected employees etc that the new runway is expected to bring in. As if it remotely needed it but the case for Metro North with appropriate sized platforms is even stronger now.

Just get on with it.

Idbatterim

My only concern is this Metro North light idea! Incredibly foolish and short sighted IMO. Even if the trains are 60m at the start, all stations should be built to 90meter standard. Specially now that they are talking about a Metro South. That would just put way more passenger numbers heading to the airport.

yes they should all be to 90m, but I would even take 90m underground and 60m above ground, as at least above group its a relatively cheap fix! If they want to go with the build it cheaper and tinker every few years option, the underground stations, arent something that can be tinkered with...

The fact we are even having this discussion, shows what a sham, planning is here! Until when does the current Metro north have planning?