Metro North and Dart Underground costs revealed

Victor

monument wrote: »

The closest redline stop is also around 200 meters or less from Docklands Station, that's direct.

No, it can be as much as 500 metres from Docklands station to Spencer Dock station, especially if you have to walk from the far end of Docklands station (platforms are 180 metres long) and then some distance along the platform at Spencer Dock station.

This underestimates the distance: http://maps.google.ie/maps?saddr=Unknown+road&daddr=Mayor+Street+Upper&hl=en&ll=53.34984,-6.238196&spn=0.003247,0.010568&sll=53.348811,-6.237301&sspn=0.000574,0.001321&geocode=Fc4PLgMdUcyg_w%3BFd0JLgMdCdOg_w&t=m&mra=dme&mrsp=1&sz=20&z=17

cgcsb wrote: »

The DARt underground tunnel can only accommodate electric trains.

No, it can also accommodate 2700, 2800, 29000 and 22000 classes. However, in practical terms is suspect these would be rarely used, unless modifications were made.

TheLB wrote: »

**Crayon Alert**

They should convert the Maynooth line to light-rail rolling stock (not the gauge), and then extend the line from the Docklands Station across the James Joyce bridge (it's built for light rail) and up the quays to Marlborough St. You would then free up Connolly Station for increased N-S Dart traffic and the Maynooth line would terminate at a better location in the city centre.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Illegal is a pretty strong word. Do you know the legislation? Not doubting you, just wondering about the rationale.

I understand that design standards don't permit any new third rail systems. Repairs and renovation of existing systems are allowed, I'm not sure about extensions.

Pete_Cavan

According to the plans, the new Docklands underground station will have an enterance directly onto the Luas Red Line;





If/when this new station is built, the existing Docklands station should be removed. Either extend the track and have a new combined station above the underground one or reroute the services to Connolly, even if they terminate there and dont cross the bridge. I would imagine very few people would stay on a service to the existing Docklands station, they would either change at Broombridge for Luas to city centre or at Drumcondra to Dart/Intercity/Metro. Seems pointless to go beyond Drumcondra to anywhere other than Connolly.

Captain Chaos

Victor wrote: »

No, it can also accommodate 2700, 2800, 29000 and 22000 classes. However, in practical terms is suspect these would be rarely used, unless modifications were made.

Well the 27s are gone. The 26/28s will probably never use it as they will be retired again this thing is built and are based in Limerick and Cork unless they are being moved to Inchicore or Drogheda for heavy maintenance. The 22s and 29s were designed with underground running in mind so not much would be needed to be done to remove emissions from the tunnel.

Victor

ringostare wrote: »

And that children is why they say: "There's a new one born every minute....."

No insults please

Moderator

thisisadamh

Would they just build it already. Construction is dirt cheap now and this will create jobs. Now is the best time, so it can be all ready for when the economy picks up again!

Peregrine

thisisadamh wrote: »

Would they just build it already. Construction is dirt cheap now and this will create jobs. Now is the best time, so it can be all ready for when the economy picks up again!

Cheaper or not, the only project that did get the go ahead is Luas BXD. I believe it costs about 10-15% of what MN will cost, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why Luas BXD was included in the list of "Major transport projects" is beyond me, MN and DU are far more important. Essentially what Varadkar has done is picked the cheapest one.

aindriu80

I see the French are working away at the lgv, the largest construction project in europe. We could build 1 metro line at least.

thisisadamh

DU should of been the one that went ahead, as it links the luas lines at SSG and Docklands. As well as linking all the mainline rail systems.

Sierra Oscar

It seems that European leaders are coming closer and closer to agreeing that a significant stimulus plan is needed to kick-start the European economy, with an emphasis being placed upon the development of infrastructure. One has to wonder if this will present an opportunity for the government to push ahead with either the Dart Underground or Metro North? Would I be right in saying that both of these projects would represent significant spin off in terms of construction jobs and the likes, bigger than any other infrastructure plan that the government has at hand?

Aard

There will of course be jobs made in the construction of MN and DU, but nearly more important IMO is the long-term reduced cost of doing business that they will bring. Traffic congestion may not be as bad today as it was ten years ago, but once the economy starts picking up it will become as bad as ever. Whether our rural brethren like it or not, traffic congestion in Dublin costs the entire Irish economy a lot of money every year. In addition, Ireland depends heavily on FDI -- our performance on infrastructure is never top of the table, so sorting that out will increase our competitivity.

I don't know if DU / MN will create more construction jobs than other projects. If and when they are built, they will certainly stimulate intensified development in the vicinity of their stations. So even if their actual construction doesn't create the most jobs, they will ensure sustained development long after they are built.

strassenwo!f

Unfortunately, there are significant capacity issues with the Dart underground project which make it very difficult to see it as a runner in the foreseeable future.

Basically, under the current plan it will only be used at only around 33% or so of its theoretical capacity. While it does have merits, it's going to be hard to sell this project until the capacity issues are dealt with, especially given the likely cost.

Aard

I am not entirely au fait with these things, but I would imagine that there would be a lot of redundancy built into these types of massive infrastructure projects? If it were to be used at 100% capacity from the get-go then that'd be an even bigger problem! In addition, there's no point in running empty trains through it just because they can.

When you say used at 33%, is that a low proportion by European standards? Very interesting issue, if this means that it'll make DU a hard sell.

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

I am not entirely au fait with these things, but I would imagine that there would be a lot of redundancy built into these types of massive infrastructure projects? If it were to be used at 100% capacity from the get-go then that'd be an even bigger problem! In addition, there's no point in running empty trains through it just because they can.

When you say used at 33%, is that a low proportion by European standards? Very interesting issue, if this means that it'll make DU a hard sell.

Well, for example, the interconnector has been compared many times on this board with the main S-Bahn tunnel in Munich, which has 30 trains per hour per direction at peak times. Obviously in bigger cities like London and Paris they also have tunnels which see this kind of throughput, but Munich is a city which has often been mentioned, because the city's size is not very different to Dublin's, and its density is lower.

There are a number of factors involved in the use of the tunnel, and it can be the case that you don't want to use the tunnel at 100% of capacity from day 1. It is also very important to look at the arrangements for the lines which are feeding into the tunnel.

The key thing here is that, under the current plans (which might see the Dart Underground project completed in, say 2022), the tunnel would be used to around 33% of its capacity. Under the plans outlined by the National Transport Authority for Dublin in 2030 there would really be no obvious increase in the use of this capacity.

For example, there is no indication that extra lines are planned to go into the tunnel in 2030, and no obvious scope for increases, in or around 2030, in use of the capacity on the lines which are planned to go through the tunnel from around 2022 onwards.

This is a long time to see no obvious increase in the use of the available capacity.

The DART underground is a big and expensive project and the use of its capacity will become a bigger issue the closer it comes to fruition. There will need to be proper answers.

ringostare

nonsense

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are significant capacity issues with the Dart underground project which make it very difficult to see it as a runner in the foreseeable future.

Basically, under the current plan it will only be used at only around 33% or so of its theoretical capacity. While it does have merits, it's going to be hard to sell this project until the capacity issues are dealt with, especially given the likely cost.

Dart Underground has one of the best cost benefit cost-benefit ratios out there.

It adds major capacity and connectivity to Dublin's public transport network. It makes the disjointed mess that is there into a decent network.

Running at only 33% capacity of the tunnel on day one would still be a massive improvement to the current set up and as already mentioned it would be worrying if it was running anywhere near 100% on opening. I've never seen this issue mentioned anywhere else -- while Metro North drew a lot of the anti-rail attention away from DU, there was very few anyway strongly against the project. Regardless, underuse of capacity on day one is an non-issue, and more so a non-issue this far away from opening!

It makes use of the KRP which is effectively a waste or half a waste until the tunnel etc is in place.

I'd like to say DU should be as easy of a sell as Crossrail is in London, but DU is more like a project which is 40 or more years behind when it should have been built. Dublin City is needs DU as the backbone to its rail network so the city can grow.

The only reason a project like this is a hard sell is because [0] before now at least the view in the EU was cut and no "stimulus" spending was to be kept to smaller projects [1] there's nobody willing to take on the myth of a lie that "Dublin gets everything" (and that's harder to do in a downturn), [2] regardless how many Dublin or other city ministers there are, Irish politics is still rural-focused, [3] there's a lack of vision / there's a lack of public faces of a vision for Dublin, and [4] even after years of underinvestment in public transport there's still a bias for road building projects and its eaiser to build a load of projects across a few years than it is to have a large chunk of your budget taken up by one project.

All of the above could likely be behind behind getting the money togather in this climate, but even if there was enough money or cheap access to it, the above issues are major problems.

Zebra3

While DU is hugely important, not a penny further should be spent on it without unions agreeing to run the DART on the same hours as the Luas currently does-and that's as a bare minimum.

No point spending vast sums of money on something that finishes at 23:30.

Victor

Zebra3 wrote: »

While DU is hugely important, not a penny further should be spent on it without unions agreeing to run the DART on the same hours as the Luas currently does-and that's as a bare minimum.

No point spending vast sums of money on something that finishes at 23:30.

Let's keep to the topic.

Moderator

aindriu80

Did anyone think the artist impression of the Metro was a bit simple ? You could hardly expect Canary Warf stations here but I wasn't really that impressed with what they came up with.

OssianSmyth

The stations were simplified during design stage to lower costs.

PPP is still alive but half the boom volume. Irish 10yr debt is now .5%

Four large European PPP projects closed in 2012 (compared to seven in 2011). These were:
− The Intercity Express Programme (Phase 1) in the UK (EUR 3.2 billion);
− The Nimes-Montpellier high speed rail bypass in France (EUR 1.8 billion);
− The Rotterdam World Gateway port expansion (Maasvlakte 2) in the
Netherlands (EUR 720 million); and
− The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris courthouse PPP in France (EUR 563 million).

aindriu80

Thanks for posting that. It's been a while since I saw a video of the metro. I see it says that Metro North would rival other 'major' european capital's equivalent but I think its cut down a fair bit.

PseudoFamous

aindriu80 wrote: »

Did anyone think the artist impression of the Metro was a bit simple ? You could hardly expect Canary Warf stations here but I wasn't really that impressed with what they came up with.

Personally I don't really give a toss about what the trainstations look like so long as the line is built. When they're falling down or need expansion in 20 years, then they can be refurbed to whatever's cool and modern but right now I think getting steel on the ground is the main thing.

aindriu80

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Personally I don't really give a toss about what the trainstations look like so long as the line is built. When they're falling down or need expansion in 20 years, then they can be refurbed to whatever's cool and modern but right now I think getting steel on the ground is the main thing.

Of course it won't get anything like a communist subway but we won't have any of these either :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9712101/The-most-impressive-underground-railway-stations-in-Europe.html?frame=2413849

I think there are only segments of the Metro north that meet high capacity european type Metro.

AngryLips

I doubt MN would ever happen, but if it did (and in conjunction with DU) then it would be a big mistake to attempt a build of Stephen's Green station with anything less than massive excess capacity because this will be where the majority of all journeys begin and end.

It's a shame that MN isn't routed on an alignment closer to Mary Street and Liffey Street as that would make it more central for the northside city centre than the current alignment on OCS with less duplication of major bus and Luas routes along that corridor.

Victor

aindriu80 wrote: »

Did anyone think the artist impression of the Metro was a bit simple ? You could hardly expect Canary Warf stations here but I wasn't really that impressed with what they came up with.

Function is the most important thing. You can't ignore aesthetics, but snazziness is well down the line.

AngryLips wrote: »

I doubt MN would ever happen, but if it did (and in conjunction with DU) then it would be a big mistake to attempt a build of Stephen's Green station with anything less than massive excess capacity because this will be where the majority of all journeys begin and end.

Very few people live in St. Stephen's Green - just the park keeper (and family?). However it will be a very important connection point.

It's a shame that MN isn't routed on an alignment closer to Mary Street and Liffey Street as that would make it more central for the northside city centre than the current alignment on OCS with less duplication of major bus and Luas routes along that corridor.

You are forgetting connectivity.

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, for example, the interconnector has been compared many times on this board with the main S-Bahn tunnel in Munich, which has 30 trains per hour per direction at peak times. Obviously in bigger cities like London and Paris they also have tunnels which see this kind of throughput, but Munich is a city which has often been mentioned, because the city's size is not very different to Dublin's, and its density is lower.

There are a number of factors involved in the use of the tunnel, and it can be the case that you don't want to use the tunnel at 100% of capacity from day 1. It is also very important to look at the arrangements for the lines which are feeding into the tunnel.

The key thing here is that, under the current plans (which might see the Dart Underground project completed in, say 2022), the tunnel would be used to around 33% of its capacity. Under the plans outlined by the National Transport Authority for Dublin in 2030 there would really be no obvious increase in the use of this capacity.

For example, there is no indication that extra lines are planned to go into the tunnel in 2030, and no obvious scope for increases, in or around 2030, in use of the capacity on the lines which are planned to go through the tunnel from around 2022 onwards.

This is a long time to see no obvious increase in the use of the available capacity.

The DART underground is a big and expensive project and the use of its capacity will become a bigger issue the closer it comes to fruition. There will need to be proper answers.

Is your 33% figure based on current usage of the south western commuter line into heuston and the northern section of the DART?

If so that is truley silly. The numbers of people using the southwestern line will balloon after DARTu opens because it opens up way more central stations to commuters and it'll also introduce a way more frequent DART service.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

Dart Underground has one of the best cost benefit cost-benefit ratios out there.

I've no doubt that's true. It didn't help it get built though, during the richest period this country has ever seen, did it?

monument wrote: »

It adds major capacity and connectivity to
Dublin's public transport network. It makes the disjointed mess that is there into a decent network.

I am in broadly in favour of the DART underground project, and I fully understand what it is designed to do.

monument wrote: »

Running at only 33% capacity of the tunnel on day one would still be a massive improvement to the current set up and as already mentioned it would be worrying if it was running anywhere near 100% on opening.

It would be an improvement, but I imagine you can see that a 2 billion euro project, at a time when money is tight, is going to come seriously under the microscope before ground is broken. Not like the gentle examination carried out by An Bord Pleanala.

monument wrote: »

I've never seen this issue mentioned anywhere else -- while Metro North drew a lot of the anti-rail attention away from DU, there was very few anyway strongly against the project.

This issue has been discussed on this board on a number of occassions. I'm surprised you have missed it. Irish Rail have consistently trumpeted their belief that they will be able to run 16 trains in each direction per hour through this tunnel. In the absence of turnback platforms at the Spencer Dock station, such a throughput of trains through the interconnector would seem to be an Irish Rail fantasy, if there are still to be Drogheda/Dundalk arrow trains and Enterprises entering and leaving Connolly Station.

monument wrote: »

Regardless, underuse of capacity on day one is an non-issue, and more so a non-issue this far away from opening!

No, it's absolutely not a non-issue. For example, If you look at the NTA's plans for 2030, they have the interconnector AND a LUAS line between Lucan and the centre of the city. This LUAS line will probably deliver people from Lucan to the centre of the city in around 30 minutes.

Now, for example, what about building a short spur from Lucan to the electrified Kildare line? It might be a little more expensive than the LUAS line, it might not, but it would be able to deliver people from Lucan into the centre of the city in about 12 minutes, rather that 30, using the excess capacity available in the interconnector. That adds up, over the years.

The current situation looks like the plans for Dublin involve building big expensive lines, and not using them to their full capacity, and ALSO building lots of little lines, which take a long time to get people where they want to go.

The worst of both worlds, in my opinion.

ringostare

Laughable drivel strassenwolf.
It's called building for the future.

By your logic the whole Green line was a waste of money. Shur they could have built a direct Luas line from Sandyford to the DORT at Blackrock.
'Cos everybody goes into the city centre right?

strassenwo!f

ringostare wrote: »

Laughable drivel strassenwolf.
It's called building for the future.

By your logic the whole Green line was a waste of money. Shur they could have built a direct Luas line from Sandyford to the DORT at Blackrock.
'Cos everybody goes into the city centre right?

No, Ringo, not everybody goes into the city centre. But it is the top destination, so it is the one that should be focused on first.

Thus, utilising capacity on a rapid rail line which does go through the city should be a priority.

aindriu80

Looking at the above proposed image I think the interconnector is wrong no matter how effective its supposed to be. If you take the four main lines coming into Dublin should they not just terminate at 3 main intercity train stations full stop and then take city traffic on its merits?

Dealing with city wide transportation has to be more logical from a viewpoint of connecting major points (stations, locations etc) in the city with light rail or Metro as opposed to the other way around and having rail go straight through the city ?

You can understand why DART exists on intercity track but I would rather a network serve the remit of the capital as opposed to the other way around.

cgcsb

It has been accepted since the late 18th century or so in terms of transport planning, that through running of transport services through urban centres is more efficient than terminating services in central areas for several reasons including better connectivity and preservation of terminal capacity in central areas, as well as reduction in journey times. This is how urban rail systems in most of the developed world have been planned and continue as such.

Most major European cities have(or are building) their own version of Dart U connecting heavy rail lines that previously terminated at unconnected stations for more efficient through running services. Key examples are: Munich in 1974 (they're actually planning a second one). Stockholm is doing the same thing at the minute, as is London(crossrail)