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

dowlingm

What would it take to (light) Metroise Green Line:

• Acquire 2.65m Citadis trams (similar to Paris T3) or similar.
• Chop the platforms back to 2.65m width.
• Optional: extend the platforms to permit double or triple unit trains, do the same for the power infrastructure.
• Send the 2.40m trams to other LUAS extension.
• Accept that the 2.65m trams won't be interoperable with Red Line.
• Grade separate any junctions

Connecting Green Line to Metro North would be a whole other story, essentially requiring extending the tunnel under Green Line for a good way out and then chopping out the line to permit a portal from the -1 level to the basically elevated level of the inner Green Line wherever there is a suitable distance between bridges.

Having wide distances between stops is tricky because then you're basically going to require a parallel An Lar bus for people who can't, for mobility reasons, walk a distance of 400-600m to the middle of the interstop zone and then however many metres off the route they live.

monument

BrianD wrote: »

I don't know why they keep trotting out this metro guage rubbish. They've built a tram line. That's all it will ever be. End of story. It will only every be a Metro if the completely close it and rebuild everything. The only saving is that they can re use some track. I'm surprised at the RPA that they can still push out this ridiculous theory to the public. Then again they may well be an uninformed as I think they are.

A metro can mean a lot of things.

What exactly do you think it means?

DWCommuter

BrianD wrote: »

I don't know why they keep trotting out this metro guage rubbish. They've built a tram line. That's all it will ever be. End of story. It will only every be a Metro if the completely close it and rebuild everything. The only saving is that they can re use some track. I'm surprised at the RPA that they can still push out this ridiculous theory to the public. Then again they may well be an uninformed as I think they are.

I'm stunned that the Irish Rail Users or whatever they call themselves can express surprise about the build. 5 years ago is when they should have expressed their concerns.

In fairness to Rail Users Ireland, they did express concerns 5 years ago. I assume they are just restating those concerns now.

However its worth pointing out that the issue on the Green line extension/conversion to metro issue that RUI put forward 5 years ago was based on the fundamentals of a route that could easily be converted to a metro at a later date. If the Green line extension was built along the original Harcourt street alignment, then upgrading it was easy. But the route would not have served the more densely populated area that the current extension serves.
With that said, the current extension was built with minimal grade separation and was always going to be a glorified tram line despite the width of the alignment allowing for wider metro style vehicles. (Thats just a repeat of the original green line metro story) This is why Mannings comments are bonkers and ultimately disingenuous .

A real plan with real commitment would have seen a metro running from Cherrywood to Swords via the airport and with a branch to Tallaght. But we procrastinated, built a tram system around the southside of the city (more or less) and left the northside to stew in the current dilemma that is metro north.

In conclusion. The Government are bull****ters. Their agencies are just mandarins that clean up the bull**** without actually admitting that it was bull**** in the first place.

DWCommuter

monument wrote: »

A metro can mean a lot of things.

What exactly do you think it means?

I'll take this one....

A rapid transit, metro, subway, underground, or elevated railway system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and frequency, and which is grade separated from other traffic. ...

Thats not the luas anyway.

You're turn next.;)

monument

DWCommuter wrote: »

Thats not the luas anyway.

You're turn next.;)

Sounds like It could be Metro North and it could be the Green Line with a (costly) upgrade.

Zebra3

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224280470263

More rubbish in today's Times. :rolleyes:

spacetweek

Zebra3 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224280470263

More rubbish in today's Times. :rolleyes:

Don't see anything about the Metro there, is it archived? What did it say?

spacetweek

The "upgrade Green line" article points out something I'd always noticed - the Racecourse stop is miles away from the racecourse and serves no purpose whatsoever. The whole point of trams is that like buses, they generally drop you very near your destination (i.e. coverage is higher) compared to underground rail/commuter rail which is more based around the idea of dropping you off in some kind of transport node from where you switch to another mode (or walk) in order to complete your journey. What exactly, then, is the point of a tram stop that serves a destination that requires a 20 minute walk to get to the destination? They would have been better off providing nothing at all.

As for the upgrade, Stephen's G.-Sandyford is feasible but not the rest. I think an upgrade will consist of the existing Luas service running Bray-Broombridge and the Metro sharing the Ranelagh-Sandyford segment. That leaves 3 level crossings: Stillorgan and Milltown (which can be closed) and Beechwood (which cannot). The metro would also not stop at all stops (e.g. Stillorgan, Beechwood, Cowper).

runway16

spacetweek wrote: »

Don't see anything about the Metro there, is it archived? What did it say?

A chap wrote in to make comments on the project. He felt it was the wrong plan and that the Dublin-Belfast rail line should be diverted to the airport, and further diverted to serve Heuston station. He's not wrong in my view - that should happen anyway and seperately of metro, but he missed the point, as most people seem to, that the metro is not just an airport rail link.

He also argued that we cant fill the "0.7 billion euro tunnel"..... again missing the point that the tunnel was designed to get heavy vehicles in and out of the port quickly and is tolled so as to discourage private cars for that very reason.

These are easy points to explain to people - but it isn't being done. Why aren't the RPA out explaining this??

It makes me wonder if the agenda is really to have the project cancelled through misinformation.

Sponge Bob

The project will be cancelled as impossible to finance...if anything. Have you not read this discussed from here ??

monument

spacetweek wrote: »

Don't see anything about the Metro there, is it archived? What did it say?

Here's a link to the letter in question;

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/1006/1224280470263.html

LeinsterDub

spacetweek wrote: »

The "upgrade Green line" article points out something I'd always noticed - the Racecourse stop is miles away from the racecourse and serves no purpose whatsoever. The whole point of trams is that like buses, they generally drop you very near your destination (i.e. coverage is higher) compared to underground rail/commuter rail which is more based around the idea of dropping you off in some kind of transport node from where you switch to another mode (or walk) in order to complete your journey. What exactly, then, is the point of a tram stop that serves a destination that requires a 20 minute walk to get to the destination? They would have been better off providing nothing at all.

I don't see why a feeder bus wouldn't work perfectly here . The stop was only going to be used for big days anyway ?

KC61

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't see why a feeder bus wouldn't work perfectly here . The stop was only going to be used for big days anyway ?

A couple of reasons:
1) Sandyford is closer
2) Sandyford is cheaper

This Metro North, is it just another name for a Luas line? As in, what kind of carriage is going to be used? Dart or Luas or something else?

If its something else it seems kind of nuts to have 3 different light rail systems in 1 city

Excuse my ignorance if I'm way off the mark on this, I'm not at all familiar with this project

oharach

Deleted User wrote: »

This Metro North, is it just another name for a Luas line? As in, what kind of carriage is going to be used? Dart or Luas or something else?

If its something else it seems kind of nuts to have 3 different light rail systems in 1 city

Well then try arguing with the Germans' 3-pronged approach: S-Bahn, U-Bahn, Tram.

• Dart is our S-Bahn.
• Metro North will be our U-Bahn.
• Luas is better quality (more off-street/segregated running) than the average German tram, approaching the service quality of a Stadtbahn.

Metro North and Luas are theoretically interoperable with relatively minor works, but this won't come to fruition in practice, so we'll have two light-rail systems. Dart is heavy rail.

etchyed

Deleted User wrote: »

This Metro North, is it just another name for a Luas line? As in, what kind of carriage is going to be used? Dart or Luas or something else?

If its something else it seems kind of nuts to have 3 different light rail systems in 1 city

Excuse my ignorance if I'm way off the mark on this, I'm not at all familiar with this project

Metro North will use Luas-style trams or light rail vehicles (LRVs) but they will be significantly longer than Luas trams and separated from other traffic, meaning their frequency will be much higher. The rationale behind this is that it's cheaper than operating a full heavy rail system with complex signalling. In theory Metro North will be interoperable with Luas but this is unlikely to ever happen.

DART is not light rail. Although the planning of rail in Dublin has been a mess, it's disingenuous to describe "3 different light rail systems". There will be a heavy rail system and an interoperable system of on-street and underground light rail. That's not really nuts.

EDIT: Sorry oharach, didn't see your reply. The comparison to Germany is apt.

Empire o de Sun

Co

oharach wrote: »

Well then try arguing with the Germans' 3-pronged approach: S-Bahn, U-Bahn, Tram.

• Dart is our S-Bahn.
• Metro North will be our U-Bahn.
• Luas is better quality (more off-street/segregated running) than the average German tram, approaching the service quality of a Stadtbahn.

Metro North and Luas are theoretically interoperable with relatively minor works, but this won't come to fruition in practice, so we'll have two light-rail systems. Dart is heavy rail.

Commuter is more like S-Bahn than Dart.

Dart is something in between U-Bahn and S-Bahn, S-Bahn is designed to serve the outer suburbs and satelite towns, like the Commuter.

Dart serves an area that is nearly completely within Dublin.

LeinsterDub

KC61 wrote: »

A couple of reasons:
1) Sandyford is closer
2) Sandyford is cheaper

So not following. Are you saying they should of when to Sandyford instead. If so where?

Thanks

KC61

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So not following. Are you saying they should of when to Sandyford instead. If so where?

Thanks

Getting off at Sandyford LUAS stop and walking to Leopardstown race course is a faster way than actually continuing all the way to racecourse on the tram. Racecourse stop is a long distance from the course.

It is also cheaper - Racecourse is in a later zone.

D.L.R.

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

Co

Commuter is more like S-Bahn than Dart.

Dart is something in between U-Bahn and S-Bahn, S-Bahn is designed to serve the outer suburbs and satelite towns, like the Commuter.

Dart serves an area that is nearly completely within Dublin.

Nah, their medium haul "Commuter" services are the Regionalbahn lines. S-Bahn and Dart are much the same in terms of scope.

oharach

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

Co

Commuter is more like S-Bahn than Dart.

Dart is something in between U-Bahn and S-Bahn, S-Bahn is designed to serve the outer suburbs and satelite towns, like the Commuter.

Dart serves an area that is nearly completely within Dublin.

I see your point about the limited catchment area of the Dart, but when we complete the extensions to Balbriggan/Drogheda, Maynooth and Hazelhatch/Kildare, it will be much more like a typical S-Bahn.

Most Commuter services are comparable with the RB in my opinion, since they go beyond satellite towns, serving a much large catchment, and usually terminating in large towns/cities, instead of the smaller towns typical of S-Bahn Endstationen.

A few of the express Commuter services could come under the RE banner.

In any case, it's great to get the taxonomy right now, so that Deutsche Bahn can make their move into the Irish market

zootroid

Article in today's independent about the Metro. Estimated construction costs have fallen by a third.

THE Metro North light-rail system linking Dublin city centre with the airport and Swords will cost €2.5bn, a third less than expected.

And although the project has yet to be given the green light by government, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) has spent €175m to date buying land, carrying out pre-construction work and planning the line.

The project was expected to cost €3.7bn but bidders are providing estimates much lower than anticipated, sources said.

This is partly due to an across-the-board reduction in costs and a lack of major projects across the EU at construction stage.

"The cost of metro systems varies between €100m and €200m per kilometre; we expect this to cost about €2.5bn (€138m per kilometre)," one source said.

"The price will be determined when the contract is signed, but each of the Luas lines came in under budget. We've spent €135m so far. That includes €25m on enabling (pre-construction) works, and another €25m on land acquisition. The rest has gone on planning, design and site investigations."

Permission

Metro North is an 18km light-rail system that will run from St Stephen's Green to Belinstown, north of Swords, and link with the Mater Hospital, DCU, Ballymun and Dublin Airport.

An Bord Pleanala will rule later this month whether permission should be granted for the project.

It is a priority project in the Renewed Programme for Government, and funding has been set aside in the revised capital expenditure programme announced last July.

Although it needs final sign-off from the Government, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey has repeatedly said it will go ahead. It will create some 4,000 full-time construction jobs -- with another 2,000 indirect jobs expected to be created.

It is the biggest infrastructure project planned in the EU for 2011, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) has already approved a €500m loan towards the costs.

This guarantee from the EIB will make the markets look more favourably on the project, but financing may yet prove difficult.

"The EIB only commits to projects after taking the innards out and stamping all over them," a government source said.

"The cost-benefit analysis is much stronger than it was even this time last year. For every €1 spent you get €2 back. A final cost-benefit case will be put to government once the An Bord Pleanala ruling comes in."

A revised business case for the project seen by the Irish Independent says that even if there is no economic growth or rise in population in the coming years, more than 30 million passengers a year will use the system -- more than the two Luas lines combined.

It also warns that if the Government does not approve the project shortly after An Bord Pleanala rules, all major public transport projects being built under Public Private Partnership models could be at risk.

See Review section

- Paul Melia

Irish Independent

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/metro-cost-falls-by-onethird-2371946.html

Makes it much more difficult to argue against now. But I'm sure the likes of Kevin Myers will come up with something :rolleyes:

Amtmann

Thanks Zootroid.

Melia also had this is the Review section:



It's a pity he didn't explicitly refute the garbage penned by his colleague Kevin Myers

monument

Links to the Independent articles:

Metro cost falls by one-third

Metro mania: the €2.5bn plan to create 4,000 jobs

Jayuu

I do have some concerns about the long term impact on Stephen's Green and I wish the RPA would provide better maps and mock-ups to show us exactly how it will look post development. I think that would go a long way to allieviating the concerns that have been raised on this matter.

But now is the time to build Metro North, if we are to build it. As we can see the costs are falling due to lack of other projects in the EU so we could end up, for once, with quite a bargain.

It is a matter of strategic planning. This recesssion/depression will end at some point and if we don't build for the future we will end up back in the same situation as we have been for the past two decades playing catch-up. Dublin requires a proper public transport infrastructure to cope with a city of over one million people. I know there are people who don't agree with the plans but I think we've gone over that enough at this stage.

monument

Frank McDonald today in The Irish Times:

The proposed “Blue Line”, which could be built at a cost of €33 million – a small fraction of the estimated €5 billion price-tag for Metro North – would offer “a high quality, high-frequency, high-capacity public transport service featuring all the benefits of a fixed-rail tram system”

Comparing the cost of a 4.5km surface busway with a 18km light railway line which is part cut and cover and part tunnelled.

And also still quoting €5 billion when anybody who knows about Metro North knew it will be lower, or even those following media coverage (didn't the Sunday Business Post report ages ago that the estimates were coming in well below €5 billion?).

Cormac Rabbitt

Originally Posted by BrianD
I don't know why they keep trotting out this metro guage rubbish.

Below is an extract from a doc that I wrote on Gauge Doc.

4.1 Track Gauge definition
Track gauge is the distance between the inside of rails; 1,435mm. is 'standard gauge' , which is widely used in Europe. Anything greater is considered ‘broad gauge’. In Ireland the gauge is 1,600mm and known as Irish gauge.
4.2 Arguments used in favour of standard gauge
Those pursuing standard gauge, use many arguments, which included that:
1) most metros worldwide run on standard gauge;
2) countries such as Spain, which have some of its older metros running on different gauges has all its the newer metros only on standard gauge.
3) by going for standard gauge, one can virtually buy the latest technology, rolling stock and track components from anywhere in the standardised world market. Standard gauge is cheaper both in the short and long run and that broad gauge would have technological difficulties and require redesign;
4) modifying standard gauge for broad gauge could lead to problems that wouldn't exist if there were no modifications;
5) Ireland does not have the state of the technology for metro systems and has to import it;
4.3 Arguments used in favour of Irish gauge
On the other hand those in favour of Irish gauge that:
1) Irish gauge is the uni-gauge in Ireland, the metros should also be on this gauge;
2) it is not be too difficult to adopt the standard gauge technology to Irish gauge;
3) metro north and new additional lines could be optimal in that they could connected to the existing network and in particular Metro North should be able to connect to the Belfast line
4.4 Luas Tallaght Public Inquiry
Luas Tallaght Report of Public Inquiry, Dec. 1998 - section 2.2.2 Gauge included the following:
1) A Mr. Bodewigs of the Irish Green Party pointed out that Luas intended to use a different gauge than that in general use on mainline services in this jurisdiction and that the integration of Light Rail Systems with mainline rail networks was a feature of many such systems on the continent of Europe and that the compatibility of gauge should be an important element of the project.
2) Luas evidence was to opt for the European rather than the Irish gauge on a number of grounds.
a) First was the question of safety. Evidence was given that there would be a greater potential for patron conflict using the Irish gauge in a street situation.
b) A further reason advanced was that the broader the gauge the more difficult it would be to get around a given curve as there would be more resistance.
c) Increased cost of manufacturing patron units to a gauge which differs to that used on the continent of Europe. Luas expressed the view that while this latter point may be of limited importance in the context of the original order for rolling stock, in the case of any additional orders it could give rise to substantial additional cost.
3) On the other hand, Luas acknowledged that the use of the Irish gauge would facilitate the running of the LRT on the mainline trackway should this be required.
4.5 Luas Sandyford Public Inquiry
Luas Sandyford Report of Public Inquiry, June 1999 - in section 2.1.2 Gauge included the following:
1) Transport Users Group sought that the Irish gauge rather than the European gauge be used.
2) The hearing inspector referred to the Luas Tallaght line approval of the European gauge and that the light rail carriages to be used on this line would be compatible with and interchangeable with those to be used on Tallaght.
3) The Inquiry concluded that the decision to opt for the European rather than the Irish gauge in this case was also justified both because of its greater suitability for on street use and for economic reasons and that the interchangeability of carriages and spare parts would render any other decision uneconomic.
4.6 Discussion
Arguments in favour of standard gauge essentially boil down to railway; standardisation, costs, operation, and the benefits thereof.
Rail gauge does not determine rolling stock width or virtually all other clearance (tolerance) associated with a railway’s alignment. Rolling stock is normally made to order, for example clients specify a) width, b) length, c) floor height seating, d) type of pantograph to accommodated catenaries - such as over-head or third rail, rail gauge, etc. Thus, it can be seen that track gauge plays only a minor role in standardisation. While the width of rolling stock could affect tunnel diameter, however it is a small affect if any, as tunnel size is usually determined by vertical and not horizontal clearance.
Regarding arguments on rail gauge, the issues claimed in section 4.2. 1 & 2 are untrue, Madrid’s metro rail gauge is 1,445mm. Many cities in Europe have 1,000mm rail gauges for trams and their other rail systems have a gauge similar to their national gauge. The RPA mention standard gauge for tracks in relation to cost and performance, but somehow choose what could be considered unusual 2.4m wide rolling stock, which as can be seen from section 3, par 1 & 2, to have a broader impact on standards (clearances are affected much more by the width of a train then rail gauge) and costs.
Regarding cost, the RPA and nobody in the world has produced data that there are decision making costs associated with increasing the width between wheels by 165mm (6.5 inches). Cases in point include that the cost of 2.9m wide rolling stock for Madrid’s metro, for Dublin’s DART and Arrow, can be seen to be no more expensive than standard gauge rolling stock and that Luas’s trams are more expensive, have higher maintenance costs and shorter life than DART’s rolling stock.
Regarding railway operation, issues listed in paragraph 4.4. 2a to 2c they do not apply to Metro North.
4.7 Conclusion
After considering the foregoing issues the overwhelming conclusion has to be that Metro North should have rolling stock 2.9m wide and be to Irish rail gauge.
Reasons include sustainable development, proper planning and development; patron comfort, railway integration with existing lines, such as the DART & Interconnector lines and interchangeability of carriages and spare parts. Metro operation and costs would render any other conclusion uneconomic.

Pete_Cavan

monument wrote: »

Frank McDonald today in The Irish Times:

Read that article as well earlier and was considering quoting it in a new thread on BRT and how it can be used in this country but wasnt sure if there is enough to say on it for it to have its own thread. I'll leave it up to the mods to decide if there is enough meat in it for its own thread.

I agree with you on the utter ridiculousness of comparing the cost of this and MN. Anyway it looks fantastic and is great news for south Dublin. Hopefully it will be a success and we will see it introduced to other cities here which do not have the population to justify a full light rail system.

monument

The Blue Line is just over 6km, not 4.5km as my last post had said. But I think my general point still stands.

Propellerhead

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

Originally Posted by BrianD
I don't know why they keep trotting out this metro guage rubbish.

Below is an extract from a doc that I wrote on Gauge Doc.

4.1 Track Gauge definition
Track gauge is the distance between the inside of rails; 1,435mm. is 'standard gauge' , which is widely used in Europe. Anything greater is considered ‘broad gauge’. In Ireland the gauge is 1,600mm and known as Irish gauge.
4.2 Arguments used in favour of standard gauge
Those pursuing standard gauge, use many arguments, which included that:
1) most metros worldwide run on standard gauge;
2) countries such as Spain, which have some of its older metros running on different gauges has all its the newer metros only on standard gauge.
3) by going for standard gauge, one can virtually buy the latest technology, rolling stock and track components from anywhere in the standardised world market. Standard gauge is cheaper both in the short and long run and that broad gauge would have technological difficulties and require redesign;
4) modifying standard gauge for broad gauge could lead to problems that wouldn't exist if there were no modifications;
5) Ireland does not have the state of the technology for metro systems and has to import it;
4.3 Arguments used in favour of Irish gauge
On the other hand those in favour of Irish gauge that:
1) Irish gauge is the uni-gauge in Ireland, the metros should also be on this gauge;
2) it is not be too difficult to adopt the standard gauge technology to Irish gauge;
3) metro north and new additional lines could be optimal in that they could connected to the existing network and in particular Metro North should be able to connect to the Belfast line
4.4 Luas Tallaght Public Inquiry
Luas Tallaght Report of Public Inquiry, Dec. 1998 - section 2.2.2 Gauge included the following:
1) A Mr. Bodewigs of the Irish Green Party pointed out that Luas intended to use a different gauge than that in general use on mainline services in this jurisdiction and that the integration of Light Rail Systems with mainline rail networks was a feature of many such systems on the continent of Europe and that the compatibility of gauge should be an important element of the project.
2) Luas evidence was to opt for the European rather than the Irish gauge on a number of grounds.
a) First was the question of safety. Evidence was given that there would be a greater potential for patron conflict using the Irish gauge in a street situation.
b) A further reason advanced was that the broader the gauge the more difficult it would be to get around a given curve as there would be more resistance.
c) Increased cost of manufacturing patron units to a gauge which differs to that used on the continent of Europe. Luas expressed the view that while this latter point may be of limited importance in the context of the original order for rolling stock, in the case of any additional orders it could give rise to substantial additional cost.
3) On the other hand, Luas acknowledged that the use of the Irish gauge would facilitate the running of the LRT on the mainline trackway should this be required.
4.5 Luas Sandyford Public Inquiry
Luas Sandyford Report of Public Inquiry, June 1999 - in section 2.1.2 Gauge included the following:
1) Transport Users Group sought that the Irish gauge rather than the European gauge be used.
2) The hearing inspector referred to the Luas Tallaght line approval of the European gauge and that the light rail carriages to be used on this line would be compatible with and interchangeable with those to be used on Tallaght.
3) The Inquiry concluded that the decision to opt for the European rather than the Irish gauge in this case was also justified both because of its greater suitability for on street use and for economic reasons and that the interchangeability of carriages and spare parts would render any other decision uneconomic.
4.6 Discussion
Arguments in favour of standard gauge essentially boil down to railway; standardisation, costs, operation, and the benefits thereof.
Rail gauge does not determine rolling stock width or virtually all other clearance (tolerance) associated with a railway’s alignment. Rolling stock is normally made to order, for example clients specify a) width, b) length, c) floor height seating, d) type of pantograph to accommodated catenaries - such as over-head or third rail, rail gauge, etc. Thus, it can be seen that track gauge plays only a minor role in standardisation. While the width of rolling stock could affect tunnel diameter, however it is a small affect if any, as tunnel size is usually determined by vertical and not horizontal clearance.
Regarding arguments on rail gauge, the issues claimed in section 4.2. 1 & 2 are untrue, Madrid’s metro rail gauge is 1,445mm. Many cities in Europe have 1,000mm rail gauges for trams and their other rail systems have a gauge similar to their national gauge. The RPA mention standard gauge for tracks in relation to cost and performance, but somehow choose what could be considered unusual 2.4m wide rolling stock, which as can be seen from section 3, par 1 & 2, to have a broader impact on standards (clearances are affected much more by the width of a train then rail gauge) and costs.
Regarding cost, the RPA and nobody in the world has produced data that there are decision making costs associated with increasing the width between wheels by 165mm (6.5 inches). Cases in point include that the cost of 2.9m wide rolling stock for Madrid’s metro, for Dublin’s DART and Arrow, can be seen to be no more expensive than standard gauge rolling stock and that Luas’s trams are more expensive, have higher maintenance costs and shorter life than DART’s rolling stock.
Regarding railway operation, issues listed in paragraph 4.4. 2a to 2c they do not apply to Metro North.
4.7 Conclusion
After considering the foregoing issues the overwhelming conclusion has to be that Metro North should have rolling stock 2.9m wide and be to Irish rail gauge.
Reasons include sustainable development, proper planning and development; patron comfort, railway integration with existing lines, such as the DART & Interconnector lines and interchangeability of carriages and spare parts. Metro operation and costs would render any other conclusion uneconomic.

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2632.pdf makes interesting reading about this sort of thing

etchyed

Posted this in the other thread also:

RPA - Metro North Myths and Facts

Good to see the RPA fighting back against the nonsense being peddled in some newspapers for the last few weeks. Shame their budget/remit doesn't extend to taking out a few full page ads in the same newspapers.

LeinsterDub

Seen some RPA guy's working on Ballymun road yesterday. Looked like there where just mapping out the lay of the land

Hotblack Desiato

etchyed wrote: »

Good to see the RPA fighting back against the nonsense being peddled in some newspapers for the last few weeks. Shame their budget/remit doesn't extend to taking out a few full page ads in the same newspapers.

Maybe that's what the newspapers want them to do... pay them money to counteract the nonsense?
Also opposing any change seems to be the default option for all newspapers, I guarantee you they were running articles 30 years ago about how the DART would be perpetually half-empty :rolleyes:

lods

ninja900 wrote: »

Maybe that's what the newspapers want them to do... pay them money to counteract the nonsense?
Also opposing any change seems to be the default option for all newspapers, I guarantee you they were running articles 30 years ago about how the DART would be perpetually half-empty :rolleyes:

*
2010 has been a significant year for Metro North. An Bord Pleanála approved the Metro North Railway Order on October 27th.** RPA now has permission to build a light rail system which is 16.5 kms long and serves 14 stops from St Stephen’s Green to Estuary in Swords. The Department of Transport has confirmed that the construction of Metro North has been allowed for in the National Recovery Plan.* RPA has completed the tender process for the first enabling works contracts and is ready to sign contracts for these in the New Year. **
*
RPA is committed to delivering a first class mass transit system for the people of Dublin and we want you to be confident we can deliver this project safely and be a good neighbour during the works.
*
We encourage you to keep informed on Metro North and to do this via www.rpa.ie or our Metro North Facebook page.
*
Building Metro North is a challenging project but together we can transform Dublin from a city which is difficult to get around to one where all retail areas, sporting and entertainment venues, educational institutions, transport interchanges and employment districts are easily accessible

BrianD

ninja900 wrote: »

Maybe that's what the newspapers want them to do... pay them money to counteract the nonsense?
Also opposing any change seems to be the default option for all newspapers, I guarantee you they were running articles 30 years ago about how the DART would be perpetually half-empty :rolleyes:

The RPA might be better off spending less money and instead spending the time on one-on-one sessions with the journos that are "peddling the lies". However, it seems that the RPA aren't doing this and so the "lies" continue. Looks like the have problems facing the real issues.

In relation to the DART - it is half empty outside of rush hour as our most forms pf public transport in this country. You can add to that most of the expensive roadways that we've built in the past 20 years.

The project is a still a dud. Anybody with a map and common sense can work that one out.

davebuck

BrianD wrote: »

The RPA might be better off spending less money and instead spending the time on one-on-one sessions with the journos that are "peddling the lies". However, it seems that the RPA aren't doing this and so the "lies" continue. Looks like the have problems facing the real issues.

The Journos will print what ever suits the sales of their newspapers and in these times reporting the usual bull**** about metro North and T2 at Dublin airport falls into this league.

The RPA have a lot of information on Metro North on their website but will the Journos read it and report some facts for a change I think not.

Propellerhead

BrianD wrote: »

In relation to the DART - it is half empty outside of rush hour as our most forms pf public transport in this country.

Yes, how dare we have the DART. Maybe all those commentators were right in the early 1980s when they advocated ripping up the railways altogether, eh?

runway16

BrianD wrote: »

In relation to the DART - it is half empty outside of rush hour as our most forms pf public transport in this country. You can add to that most of the expensive roadways that we've built in the past 20 years.

The project is a still a dud. Anybody with a map and common sense can work that one out.

Most forms of Public transport in ANY country are half empty outside of rush hour. If they werent, then they clearly wouldnt be catering for peak demand by having enough capacity, now would they? :rolleyes:

Aard

I was just reading today, on that note, that on the Washington DC metro 75% or so of its trips are made at peak times. That isn't stopping them from extending the system.

runway16

Exactly. That arguement has to be one of the most ridiculous i've ever heard.

Its similar to another debate over on the roads thread. A guy who thinks that the M17 shouldnt be built because it only links Galway with Tuam... ignoring the fact is also carries traffic from Cork to Sligo, Limerick to Donegal, Kerry to Sligo etc etc.

People in this country really need to get out of this country and open their eyes a bit more. Even London Underground is only half full outside of peak hours, or New York's subway, or pretty much any urban transit system. If it was full, it would be a clear indicator that it was under capacity during peak hours, and so wasnt up to the job.

Victor

Cars typically operate at 20% of capacity, even in rush hour.

runway16 wrote: »

Its similar to another debate over on the roads thread. A guy who thinks that the M17 shouldnt be built because it only links Galway with Tuam... ignoring the fact is also carries traffic from Cork to Sligo, Limerick to Donegal, Kerry to Sligo etc etc.

How many people actually make those trips? Gort-Tuam as a full blown motorway is questionable.

Judgement Day

apples09 wrote: »

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Yes-to-metro-north/170835799625749

You haven't posted this in the WRC thread yet.

lods

Judgement Day wrote: »

You haven't posted this in the WRC thread yet.

The moderators beat me to it too !!!:D

The RPA must be getting desperate;), their promoting that facebook page too

paulm17781

lods wrote: »

The RPA must be getting desperate;), their promoting that facebook page too

Facebook is a powerful medium these days. Promoting their page is hardly desperate, more common sense.

BrianD

lods wrote: »

The moderators beat me to it too !!!:D

The RPA must be getting desperate;), their promoting that facebook page too

The 411 followers will all hopefully be customers. Good to see that the same deluded opinions are being propagated by MN there as on here. Stuff like "Metro North will cost far less than €6bn to build ...". I should sincerely hope so. Obviously they don't want to give the real figure because it's still too expensive.

" The project is ready to go and will create over 6,000 jobs during construction"

So it will! But that's not a good enough reason to build it. We used to build stone walls to keep people busy years ago. Seems to be the same logic.

Anyway, good that they're moving with the times. When they're not Facebooking they might want to look over those figures again and take a reality check.

lods

paulm17781 wrote: »

Facebook is a powerful medium these days. Promoting their page is hardly desperate, more common sense.

Their own page is a good idea , but promoting the one that was spamming on here today is desperate .

lods

BrianD wrote: »

The 411 followers will all hopefully be customers. Good to see that the same deluded opinions are being propagated by MN there as on here. Stuff like "Metro North will cost far less than €6bn to build ...". I should sincerely hope so. Obviously they don't want to give the real figure because it's still too expensive.

" The project is ready to go and will create over 6,000 jobs during construction"

So it will! But that's not a good enough reason to build it. We used to build stone walls to keep people busy years ago. Seems to be the same logic.

Anyway, good that they're moving with the times. When they're not Facebooking they might want to look over those figures again and take a reality check.

A famine Folly:)

Zebra3

BrianD wrote: »

Stuff like "Metro North will cost far less than €6bn to build ...". I should sincerely hope so. Obviously they don't want to give the real figure because it's still too expensive.

Or because as there is an ongoing tendering process, the information is commercially sensitive. :rolleyes:

lods

Zebra3 wrote: »

Or because as there is an ongoing tendering process, the information is commercially sensitive. :rolleyes:

As the price goes down , the amount if jobs goes up . It was 4000 now it's 6000. If it's delayed another year , we could create 10,000 jobs

BluntGuy

Zebra3 wrote: »

Or because as there is an ongoing tendering process, the information is commercially sensitive. :rolleyes:

That's all well and good, but we don't even have a ballpark figure, they've said "less than 5 billion", which isn't very helpful at all apart from combating extreme claims like 15 billion. At the end of the day, as commercially sensitive as it is, we as taxpayers will have to foot the bill. It's only natural people are worried about the cost.