Rail Users Ireland Forum

Rail Users Ireland Forum (http://www.railusers.ie/forum/index.php)
-   Events, Happenings and Media (http://www.railusers.ie/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Lets Discuss Another Metro Line That Will Never Happen! (http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=15457)

Jamie2k9 06-04-2016 20:33

Lets Discuss Another Metro Line That Will Never Happen!
 
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0406/779...ansport-plans/

Quote:

A new Metro South for Dublin that would link up with Metro North and provide a rail link from Swords to Bride's Glen is part of new transport plans.

The National Transport Authority's strategy sets out decisions for the next 20 years in the Greater Dublin Area and also includes Luas links to Finglas, Lucan, Bray and Poolbeg.

But the Metro West line once planned as an orbital route linking the airport with Tallaght is not included.
Plan Links
https://fe49d9ec8511d2dc0553-f8f415f... 6-2035-1.pdf

Mark Gleeson 06-04-2016 21:08

Thats the 2001 plan again....

James Shields 11-04-2016 15:51

While the Green Luas line is nominally built to Metro standard, it has a heap of road junctions. It seems rather pointless to have a Metro line that's completely grade separated from Swords to Stephen's green, but has to deal with road crossings south of that. Plus you would leave the extension to Broombridge orphaned.

My fantasy "Metro South" would continue underground at Stephens Green, heading south-west, under Harold's Cross, head south under Terenure, break ground west of Terenure and run as an elevated railway roughly following the path to the Dodder through Tempelogue before joining the N81 out to Tallaght, with potential for extension to Jobstown and Citywest.

Yes, that would potentially result in three rail routes terminating in Tallaght, but Tallaght and Swords both have large centres of population as well as significant industrial areas, so connecting both to the city centre, along with a lot of population centres not currently served by rail, makes a lot of sense.

Yes, I know it's a total fantasy route that will never happen, but we're all entitled to our fantasies.

Thomas J Stamp 13-04-2016 13:55

unless this thing is the same as a DART its not a metro, its a tram. it may be a big tram, but its a tram nonetheless.

its nice to see metromania resurface. I remember Mark and I walking the proposed Metro West route through Clondalkin and (AFAIR) we did a big write up on it in the members section at the time. It was always but a fantasy and it keep peoples attention for a few years before it was shelved, same as this one will be.

James Shields 13-04-2016 16:41

True, but a fully grade segregated tram will still be able to provide a faster and more frequent service than a tram with level crossings.

That said, I'm not sure what benefit low floor gives to Metro North. I was recently in Manchester and the trams there are all high floor, with high platforms.

Thomas J Stamp 14-04-2016 14:26

true, but ever since that time back in the day we really have been sold many things which aren't a metro, as a metro. plop a DART car, a tube car, NY subway car and Paris Metro car in a carpark beside what was being proposed before for Metro North/south/west and you'll spot the tram fairly quickly.

So, unless what's being put down on the track is a DART-a-like its a tram, not a Metro.

It reminds me of what happened to the city swift bus service. On introduction it was dedicated fleet of buses, with signal priority, special bus stops, improved routes. Within 5 years it was old buses with a repaint.

There is also within the plans not only an idea for Metro South, but an extension of the Luas to Bray.... How would that work, since they are on the same line? Who needs a Luas to Bray anyway? (developers)

Meanwhile all this Paul McKenna nonsense is being used to distract everyone from DART Underground.

Hows the BRT going these days?

Colm Moore 17-04-2016 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Shields (Post 77462)
That said, I'm not sure what benefit low floor gives to Metro North. I was recently in Manchester and the trams there are all high floor, with high platforms.

There are two related issues.
* Level access (no vertical step between platform and carriage interior) - it means everyone can access the service (wheelchair users, prams, wheel suitcases) and better for everyone else as boarding and alighting is quicker and safer. Having straight or near-straight platforms reduces the horizontal gap between platform and carriage interior. Carriage suspension systems can be a frustrating factor.
* Low floor - this means it is compatible with existing infrastructure and new infrastructure can be put in place easily, with less need for ramps, lifts, etc.

James Shields 18-04-2016 09:14

(slightly trimmed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colm Moore (Post 77499)
There are two related issues.
* Level access.
* Low floor.

That makes perfect sense, but low floors aren't necessarily required for level access. I'm pretty sure the high floor trams were level with platforms and accessible, and as they're high floor, the floor within the trams were completely level.

It's a real pity that when IÉ underwent their platform rebuilding exercise a few years back, they didn't make some attempt to provide level access for at least DART and Commuter trains. I know there would still be a gap due to curved platforms, but it would be a whole lot better than it is now (not sure if an autoextending bridge below the door to fill the gap would be possible).

James Howard 18-04-2016 09:31

There must be a reason for the step access. No train that I've been on the Sligo line over the last 35 years or so has had level platform access - they all seem to have a single step down. This covers Cravens, Marks 2s, Mark 3s, various commuter railcars and the 22Ks.

So why when they rebuilt almost ever platform on the line about 10 years ago did they not build them 6 inches higher and give proper level access?

Jamie2k9 18-04-2016 09:57

Would think the height differance is for trains operating non stop, could be very dangerous if both were level and there was a small movement while passing station.

In Europe a lot of door steps are automatic so there would be a gap when running now stop and they were level. Still heigh differance is most common.

Colm Moore 18-04-2016 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Shields (Post 77506)
That makes perfect sense, but low floors aren't necessarily required for level access.

In the context of certain stops low floor is necessary
* Abbey Street, with adjacent doorways.
* Busáras, Heuston - limited space for ramps.

Quote:

It's a real pity that when IÉ underwent their platform rebuilding exercise a few years back, they didn't make some attempt to provide level access for at least DART and Commuter trains.
Their stated issue is the train suspension systems, where train loading, braking, etc. means that they would never line up anyway. However, if buses can have adjustable suspensions, I can't see why trains can't. Yes, I know it would cost, but most of the fleet is less than 10 years old.

James Shields 19-04-2016 12:54

I'm not arguing with the benefits of of low floor for Luas, and I was surprised to see Manchester using high platform trams.

However, for a Metro system, even a tram-based one like proposed for Dublin, the disadvantages of low-floor would seem to outweigh the benefits. Being able to inter-operate with Luas seems a very minor benefit, and if the Green line south of Stephen's Green was ever upgraded to Metro, all the platforms would need to be extended anyway, so why not just rebuild them a bit higher.

As far as not being metro, I think the key things that make a system a metro are total segregation from other modes of transport, and high frequency service. The precise vehicle being used shouldn't be that big a concern, providing you can make them frequent enough to keep up with the volume of passengers.

I think upgrading the Green line would be a mistake, because you would destroy the segregation with road crossings, and inevitably result in a much slower and less frequent service.

I would rather see a Luas every 2 minutes than a DART every 10.

James

Jamie2k9 21-06-2016 15:24

IE not keen on the airport metro and while I agree it won't happen anyone want to speculate why they appear desperate for a DART spur which we all know cannot handle the so called "vision" they have for intercity services to the airport etc. A fancy new signalling system won't cut it unless they put down a more than 7kn of new tracking into the city center.

http://www.newstalk.com/Irish-Rail-q...h-is-realistic

platypusparcel 21-06-2016 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie2k9 (Post 77842)
A fancy new signalling system won't cut it unless they put down a more than 7kn of new tracking into the city center.

Exactly the Sligo branch idea that IÉ proposed back in 2003 and was rejected due to it not being a separate entity funded by PPP

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/airpo...round-1.344376

Something like that now could also service swords, with the only sub ground section being the bit below the airport

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14L...nU&usp=sharing

James Howard 21-06-2016 16:20

You'd have to guess that Irish Rail are seeing significant loss of intercity traffic to the multitude of intercity bus services operating from the airport. Currently there are very few destinations in Ireland where the bus beats the train on time from Dublin airport and none where the train wins on cost. Maybe Tralee and Westport work better by train. So if they can steer transport policy towards the notion of direct intercity services from the airport, that suits them better.

Metro North has the usual major flaw in Dublin transport. The current plan crosses both the Sligo line and the route from GCD towards Kildare yet there is no intention to provide easy interconnection to either. Why do we keep doing this? And what's the chance of fare integration? Ah, sure you'll be able to pay twice with your leap card.

Jamie2k9 21-06-2016 22:42

Quote:

You'd have to guess that Irish Rail are seeing significant loss of intercity traffic to the multitude of intercity bus services operating from the airport. Currently there are very few destinations in Ireland where the bus beats the train on time from Dublin airport and none where the train wins on cost. Maybe Tralee and Westport work better by train. So if they can steer transport policy towards the notion of direct intercity services from the airport, that suits them better.

Metro North has the usual major flaw in Dublin transport. The current plan crosses both the Sligo line and the route from GCD towards Kildare yet there is no intention to provide easy interconnection to either. Why do we keep doing this? And what's the chance of fare integration? Ah, sure you'll be able to pay twice with your leap card.
I don't think there was a lot of traffic there in the first place. The thing that's driving the success of such routes is pricing. Running Intercity services is a flawed vision and the recipe for disaster for minimal gain as the bus would still win by a mile and the cost.

If the infrastructure director and management put as much attention into securing funding to improve what we have and bring it up to decent standard we would all benefit.

James Howard 22-06-2016 06:08

I don't think Intercity rail is entirely futile. I share a train with several hundred people heading to and from Sligo (well at least Longford) every day and there are no great population centres on that line. If a reasonable service is provided, people will use it. It's just that for now the airport is better served by bus from Sligo and most other places in Ireland.

I'm not suggesting that an airport link is a cost-effective use of infrastructure investment and it simply wouldn't work without DART underground and extra tracks north of Connolly at least as far as where the airport spur splits off. But there is obviously a turf war going on here. It's probably more a case of Irish Rail not wanting to see this going to somebody else than a case of them wanting it themselves.

In terms of investment for maintenance and improvement of existing infrastructure, it is a sad fact of life for everything in Ireland that it is far easier to get state funding to build a big new shiny thing than it is to get it to pull the weeds and fix the holes in something that we have already.

James Shields 24-06-2016 15:23

I was under the understanding that there would be an interchange at Drumcondra. Of course, this is Ireland, so (if it ever gets built), the Metro station exit will probably be down the road and across the street from the Irish Rail station...

Sadly they turned down the sensible proposal of a new station a little further west, under the tennis courts at Whitworth Road with platforms for both the Sligo line and the Midland line, serving Glasnevin and Phibsborough.

http://www.dublin15cc.com/documents/...submission.pdf

James

platypusparcel 28-06-2016 15:59

Shane Ross and Alan Farrell (in the Dail) just told Irish Rail to butt out of trying to decide the airport link route and to concentrate on "driving their trains"

https://oireachtas.heanet.ie/mp4/dai...959.000002.mp4

timestamp 43:50 for the start

timestamp 55:10 for the snarky remarks

Jamie2k9 28-06-2016 22:59

Quote:

Shane Ross and Alan Farrell (in the Dail) just told Irish Rail to butt out of trying to decide the airport link route and to concentrate on "driving their trains"

https://oireachtas.heanet.ie/mp4/dai...959.000002.mp4

timestamp 43:50 for the start

timestamp 55:10 for the snarky remarks
24-06-2016 16:23
Interesting, I can only see this link as been a big money spinner for IE and that's why they are pushing it.

Mark Gleeson 29-06-2016 07:23

If Irish Rail wasn't so deep in debt thanks to being lumped with the entire CIE debt in 1987 it could have simply done a joint venture with DAA and got the cash it needs commercially.

DAA has no trouble raising funding and the EU would throw in a few quid. Thats how Heathrow express came into being, BAA own it

berneyarms 29-06-2016 08:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by platypusparcel (Post 77863)
Shane Ross and Alan Farrell (in the Dail) just told Irish Rail to butt out of trying to decide the airport link route and to concentrate on "driving their trains"

https://oireachtas.heanet.ie/mp4/dai...959.000002.mp4

timestamp 43:50 for the start

timestamp 55:10 for the snarky remarks

That's a bit rich from both of them.

Neither public transport professionals, and don't want to hear what public transport operators have to say, and instead it would seem, rely on civil servants.

Hardly a good attitude - I would think it perfectly appropriate for the transport operators to put forward suggestions and not have them commented upon like that by politicians.

Jamie2k9 29-06-2016 09:11

berneyarms

Suggistions are not the issue, it has already been ruled out so why hash it out again. I could take it seriously if the spur was suitable and there was the capaciy but there sinply is no way to operate an Intercity and High Capacity Commuter service on a single line in each direction.

I could also take then seriously if they were honest about the real investment thats needed to deliver the service that passengers need and not for their self interest.

If anything a metro could cause significant damage to IE as I think a lot of people in North Dublin/Louth even in the North could turn away from the slow trains and drive to a Swords P&R as be honest in 10 years trains will be a lot slower than today!

IE have so much to gain here and the passenger has nothing. Not the way it should be.

Inniskeen 29-06-2016 14:27

Irish Rail are peddling a nonsense in proposing a DART spur from Clongriffin to the Airport. The Belfast line in it's present form is hopelessly congested and would not be able to host an Airport service of sufficient quality to attract business.

Given the mess made of other services in order to run a ten minute DART one can only imagine the effect of an Airport DART service.

Ross and Co are right, although probably not for the right reason. Anyhow as has been said so many times before serving the airport is only a small element of Metro North. Given the LUAS experience I am not sure that smaller trains and shorter platforms is a very intelligent way to progress Metro North.

James Shields 29-06-2016 15:42

The only way it would be practical for IE to run an airport spur would be if it was in combination with building the Interconnector and 4-tracking the relevant bits of the northern line.

I think Malahide to Killester is eminently feasible (though would require quite a bit of CPOing around Kilbarick). However, Fairview to Docklands would be highly problematic. I was thinking one solution would be to extend the northern end of the Interconnector under East Wall and Clontarf and have the tunnels emerge on the edge of Clontarf Golf Course. That way you could have a station actually serving East Point and do away with the ridiculous shuttle bus.

Of course it will never happen, but since that's the subject of this thread, I thought this would be a good place to bring up the idea.

James

berneyarms 29-06-2016 16:49

In making the comment above I was speaking in general terms rather than this specific proposal.

I certainly think it perfectly reasonable for IE or any other state body or semi-state company to make investment proposals.

To suggest, as both politicians did last night that they shouldn't, and that they should "leave it to the policy makers", would worry me a lot.

berneyarms 29-06-2016 16:55

I don't think full four tracking will happen due to space constraints, but it certainly could happen after Clontarf Road and the far side of Raheny - that would allow for overtaking, along with the installation of an up passing loop at Clongriffin.

I'd agree - the airport spur would need the above to happen first.

Jamie2k9 29-06-2016 17:28

Quote:

I don't think full four tracking will happen due to space constraints, but it certainly could happen after Clontarf Road and the far side of Raheny - that would allow for overtaking, along with the installation of an up passing loop at Clongriffin.

I'd agree - the airport spur would need the above to happen first.
I don't either, well without underground sections.

What could happen and at reasonable cost is a third track between Clontarf and Howth Junction (as much of the route as possible) and operated in a single direction at peak hours and however IE like outside of it. The signalling would not be an issue and it would deliver a remarkable difference in service to people outside of the DART line and allow 10 minute DART service while cutting times for diesel commuter service. Could even cut costs by not electrifying the third track immediately.

I don't travel the route a lot but allowing Commuter and Enterprise get up to speeds for 70-80 after Clontarf Rd would surly cut at least 5 minutes if not more at peak hours....all they get is Danger signals today!

Lots of solutions but I'm not sure who is worse IE or the NTA for complete lack of planning on this route.

Inniskeen 29-06-2016 20:36

The current timetable sees some Belast trains taking up to 45 minutes to reach Drogheda, a journey which only a few years ago was scheduled in 27 minutes, so a lot of time to be gained by a combination of timetabling and flexible and functional track layouts.

Jamie2k9 21-07-2016 16:59

http://www.newstalk.com/OPINION:-Bui...assive-mistake

What do we think?, he makes one or two good points on what should be built instead of MN.

James Shields 22-07-2016 10:00

An interesting argument.

I agree that the Interconnector should be higher priority than Metro North, however I don't agree that it has to be an either/or.

I think Dublin needs a solution to its transport problems as soon as possible. Both projects are planned and ready, and while it might take a little time to get them back on track, delivery is likely to be 2-5 years quicker than any alternative.

The total cost of around 5 billion would be over a number of years, and I don't think Ireland would have a problem raising that sort of money for major capital projects. There would be significant savings in both disruption and money to building the Stephen's green station as a single entity, which can only be done if both projects are on the table, even if one is a couple of years behind the other.

James

Goods 09-09-2018 09:22

Was at the Airport recently it gets worse by the day with a cluster of buses lined up outside terminal 1 and on an inner road the taxi access road getting preferential treatment. Further out the high rise car parks continue to go up, these are the Airport cash cows! On either side of the Airport you have the sligo line and the Clongriffin line withinin striking distance which could have been easily connected with the Airport by a branch line when M50 was being built.
Plans are in place to expand passenger numbers at the airport but without an efficient modern train or tram link it is really a poor image for anyone arriving in a 21century European capital.
Car lobby groups 3 - public transport group 0

Goods 16-09-2018 06:37

airport growing without rail
 
https://www.independent.ie/business/...-37310528.html
The airport is bigger than many towns and much busier than most with plans to enlarge. Despite the flow of people including workers there is still no rail option being developed. The car park business has a firm grip on the decision makers we must be one of the few airports in Europe of this size that does not have a rail connection despite nearby rail line that could have been linked.

James Shields 26-03-2019 17:36

Complete apathy here to updated Metro plan?


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:22.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.