Why will Metro North be light rail?

armada104

I appreciate that this question may seem a stupid one, but I've never seen it answered anywhere, so I'm just gonna go ahead and ask. As far as I can see, most of the €5bn+ price tag for Metro North will come from boring tunnels, building elevated sections and building stations. Surely then making the tunnels a little wider would cause only a negligible price increase. Or is it heavy rolling stock that's more expensive?

Please excuse my ignorance, but I just can't see where the major savings are coming from, if at all.

Transport21 Fan

It won't be big trains like the NY Subway or the Northern Line in London. But it'll be right for Dublin for now and decades to come. The trains will be longer and wider luas types similar to the system in Oporto or Line 54 in Amsterdam. The capacity will be collossal regardless, as the numbers will be based on frequency with 'line of sight' running similar to the Green Line in Boston or the U-Bahn in Hanover.

Metro West will be similar to the current Luas Green Line with level crossings and so on, but will work brilliant. Dublin is a small city, it's doesn't need a New York system. A light rail metro is all we need.

Best of all, CIE will have nothing to do with it's running and operation. So it'll serve the city and not the employees.

It'll be great I promise.

armada104 wrote: »

I appreciate that this question may seem a stupid one, but I've never seen it answered anywhere, so I'm just gonna go ahead and ask. As far as I can see, most of the €5bn+ price tag for Metro North will come from boring tunnels, building elevated sections and building stations. Surely then making the tunnels a little wider would cause only a negligible price increase. Or is it heavy rolling stock that's more expensive?

Please excuse my ignorance, but I just can't see where the major savings are coming from, if at all.

armada104

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

It won't be big trains like the NY Subway or the Northern Line in London. But it'll be right for Dublin for now and decades to come. The trains will be longer and wider luas types...

The RPA have implied that the trams will not be wider than Luas.

I understand what you've said, but that wasn't my question. What I'm wondering is how heavy rail would cost significantly more than what we have planned now.

Transport21 Fan

armada104 wrote: »

The RPA have implied that the trams will not be wider than Luas.

Has this been confirmed?

armada104 wrote: »

I understand what you've said, but that wasn't my question. What I'm wondering is how heavy rail would cost significantly more than what we have planned now.

The reason why heavy rail costs more is because the trains have greater electrical power requirements, need wider tunnels, higher platform, more complex signalling systems, bigger stations, longer platforms, more complex accessability requirements etc. The economies of scale are greater.

It's the same reason a Range Rover cost more to buy, fill up with fuel, insure, park and operate than a VW Golf. Horses for courses. I didn't want to make this analogy in my first post as I assumed this is just common sense.

Here is more or less the kinds of metro Dublin is getting:

http://urbanrail.net/eu/euromet.htm
http://urbanrail.net/eu/han/hannover.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Metro#Line_51_.28orange.29

Unless you are a journalist with the Sunday Business Post there is nothing about the Dublin Metro which should result in sleepless night and midnight terrors.

Slice

Light rail is all the rage, we want to come out the Kate Moss of airport rail links and not some clueless Posh Spice. There was always the spur from the Northern line if heavy rail was ever going to be an option

Transport21 Fan

Slice wrote: »

Light rail is all the rage, we want to come out the Kate Moss of airport rail links and not some clueless Posh Spice. There was always the spur from the Northern line if heavy rail was ever going to be an option

At least Kate Moss is very successful still in demand and reliable.

A CIE heavy rail from the Northern Line would be more like Naomi Campbell. Won't get out of bed in the morning for at least 10K, dysfuctional, rude and constantly in trouble and no one will like it.

Stick with the Kate Moss waif metro. At least it'll be there for work no matter what.

Metrobest

The sort of metro Dublin is getting is exactly what it needs - a high frequency high capacity segregated linen utilising the very best in modern metro technology.

And yes, it needs to have a sexy sleek look. Not some wrinkly old spur to the airport

markpb

Metrobest wrote: »

And yes, it needs to have a sexy sleek look. Not some wrinkly old spur to the airport

Not to mention the metro will actually go to town. It won't sit at Howth Junction waiting for the Belfast train, which has already broken down, to go past. It won't sit at each station for a completely random amount of time before coasting off again. It won't stop 100m after Clontarf Road to let the drivers change and chat about football. And it most definitely wouldn't have signs saying this train is for Mullingar when it's going to Stephens Green.

Transport21 Fan

markpb wrote: »

Not to mention the metro will actually go to town. It won't sit at Howth Junction waiting for the Belfast train, which has already broken down, to go past. It won't sit at each station for a completely random amount of time before coasting off again. It won't stop 100m after Clontarf Road to let the drivers change and chat about football. And it most definitely wouldn't have signs saying this train is for Mullingar when it's going to Stephens Green.

Indeed. Irish Rail is such a joke the sooner it is taken over by the RPA or privatised the better.

It is without a doubt the most pathetic rail system in the Western World and money is not and never will be the solution to this third-world, cold war era piece of almost pointless junk.

Bring on the metro and luas!

armada104

Transport21 Fan: despite your username I've always found your posts to be relatively balanced and informative (I've been lurking on this forum for a couple of months). However your responses to this thread -along with a few other members' - have been overly defensive of the current plans.

I asked, from a purely technical point of view, why heavy rail would cost more. If I'm getting this wrong, please, explain it to me. But...

I don't see why slightly wider tunnels would cost significantly more. Electrical power requirements are an operational cost. Why would higher platforms cost more? Why would more complex signalling systems be required? Heavy rail does not necessarily mean longer platforms (though IMO it should).

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

more complex accessability requirements etc.

what?

Transport21 Fan wrote:

It'll be great I promise.

Please don't patronise me.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

It's the same reason a Range Rover cost more to buy, fill up with fuel, insure, park and operate than a VW Golf. Horses for courses. I didn't want to make this analogy in my first post as I assumed this is just common sense.

Please, please don't patronise me!

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

It's the same reason a Range Rover cost more to buy, fill up with fuel, insure, park and operate than a VW Golf. Horses for courses. I didn't want to make this analogy in my first post as I assumed this is just common sense.

Here is more or less the kinds of metro Dublin is getting:

http://urbanrail.net/eu/euromet.htm
http://urbanrail.net/eu/han/hannover.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Metro#Line_51_.28orange.29

Unless you are a journalist with the Sunday Business Post there is nothing about the Dublin Metro which should result in sleepless night and midnight terrors.

Oh God, what must I do to stop being patronised?!!






Hopefully someone will take this thread in the nonpolitical sense it's intended and explain to me why a light rail metro would be cheaper. I'm just interested, is all!!!!!!!

Prof_V

armada104 wrote: »

I don't see why slightly wider tunnels would cost significantly more.

It would depend on how much "slightly wider" meant. I suspect you could go to 2.65 metre wide vehicles (versus the 2.4 metre proposed) without changing the diameter. There was an intention to use 2.65m vehicles that narrowed to 2.4m at platform level so that they could use Luas platforms, but this seems to have been abandoned because there was too much custom-building involved. DART vehicles are 2.9m wide, but heavy metros can be narrower than this.

Electrical power requirements are an operational cost.

The power-supply infrastructure is a significant capital cost.

Why would higher platforms cost more?

Personally, I doubt that they would cost significantly more. The primary reason for going with low floor was compatibility with Luas.

Why would more complex signalling systems be required?

Unless the plans have changed, the intention is for surface sections to have on-sight running like Luas, so minimal signalling (road crossings and point indicators only) would be required in those areas. (I suspect the surface section between Ballymun and the airport will be fully signalled, though, because it'll be sandwiched between two tunnels.) For heavy rail, the entire system would require signalling. Mention of road crossings also raises the point that these would all need to be grade-separated for heavy rail, which would be a further expense.

Heavy rail does not necessarily mean longer platforms (though IMO it should).

True, but the incremental capacity benefits would be very small without platform lengthening, and the costs of longer underground stations would be non-trivial.

Zoney

I'm skeptical this will be anything other than an extension to the Luas system with underground bits. If so, then it hasn't a hope of allowing a great enough frequency of service and capacity.

aliveandkicking

Zoney wrote: »

I'm skeptical this will be anything other than an extension to the Luas system with underground bits. If so, then it hasn't a hope of allowing a great enough frequency of service and capacity.

Well if you read up a little bit you would know it will be built to have 90m trams running every 2 minutes compared to Luas 40m trams every 5 minutes. Do the maths, it's significantly higher capacity and frequency than the Luas.

The lines between light rail and heavy rail are becoming blurred all the time. For joe public what's the difference between a 90m long tram and a 90m long heavy train? Answer: F**k all.

aliveandkicking

armada104 wrote: »

Transport21 Fan: despite your username I've always found your posts to be relatively balanced

:D Am I the only one who finds that funny?

But anyway he wasn't patronising you. A heavy rail metro would cost a lot more for not a lot in terms of capacity and frequency.

A heavy rail line metro would legally be required to have a complex signalling system (light rail does not have this requirement). Cost - millions. Benefit - Nothing but how often is DART delayed to signalling faults? Light rail never has this problem.

A heavy rail metro would have to be entirely segregated with no crossing of the tracks by the public anywhere except at level crossings/bridges. Cost - Millions. Benefit - None except to inconvenience the public.

Complete Grade Seperation at junctions. Cost - 10s of millions. Benefit - Maybe shave a minute or two off the journey time.

Gated Level Crossings at junctions that cannot be grade seperated. Cost - 10s of millions. Benefit - A minute or two off the journey time with the added bonus of causing significant traffic congestion at the level crossings where the gates will have to be closed every two minutes to let trains pass.

Heavy trains cost more and have more maintenance requirements than light rail trains/trams.

Light rail trains can go around sharp bends, heavy rail trains can't.

Zoney

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Well if you read up a little bit you would know it will be built to have 90m trams running every 2 minutes compared to Luas 40m trams every 5 minutes. Do the maths, it's significantly higher capacity and frequency than the Luas.

The lines between light rail and heavy rail are becoming blurred all the time. For joe public what's the difference between a 90m long tram and a 90m long heavy train? Answer: F**k all.

It's not for want of reading promises that I'm skeptical. It's who is making the promises.

Besides, I'm not arguing for heavy rail. I do not however think that considering the cost of providing the alignment (including tunnels) for the metro that it should be anything like in the same league as the Luas - which is a tram system (by that I am not referring to the "light rail" aspect but to the type of service provided). Metro needs not to be an extension of a tram system, but a proper high-capacity *METRO system* backbone for the public transport network in Dublin (including buses, Luas and connections to heavy rail and the airport).

As far as I'm concerned, considering the people making the promises; Metro is more being used as a branding exercise in the case of Dublin rather than it actually being used to describe a real METRO.

Transport21 Fan

aliveandkicking wrote: »

The lines between light rail and heavy rail are becoming blurred all the time.

Very true and it's being blured mainly in favour of light rail. The conversion of lines in France and Germany towards Tram-Trains or Train-Trams will probably be the next evolutionary step after railcars. This means that Irish Rail should have the first Tram-Trains in service around 3059.

aliveandkicking wrote: »

For joe public what's the difference between a 90m long tram and a 90m long heavy train? Answer: F**k all.

and there is no reason why he should care either once it gets him from point A to point B on time, safely and relatively fast and frequently.

Transport21 Fan

armada104 wrote: »

Transport21 Fan: despite your username I've always found your posts to be relatively balanced and informative

That's really good! LOL.

Honestly, I wasn't patronising you at all. You asked a question and I gave an honest answer. On bended knees I swear I did not.

Transport21 Fan

Prof_V wrote: »

The primary reason for going with low floor was compatibility with Luas.

I think this is really interesting. Is there any official or hinted at statement from the RPA that they intend to operate Luas and Metro on the same tracks? Will they have the same power system?

murphaph

Heavy rail has certain advantages of course. It's not quite fair to say they are all the same. We will be using low floor vehicles which (due to their nature) have limited seating arrangements due to the wheelwells being in a fixed location. A heavy rail metro has a completely flexible internal layout as there are no wheelwells. It's also easier to maintain heavy rail vehicles as all the bits and bobs are much more readily accessible.

However in the context of Dublin where I see a 'metro' network which will eventually subsume large parts of the green and red lines, it makes absolutely no sense to opt for heavy rail. The green line is effectively a metro now. The Red line has metro like characteristics for much of it's suburban length. It is only cack in the city centre. The tram boots in from the Square to James's. In the future, a tunnel could be driven from the Rialto area to meet up with metro north, just as easily as a tunnel from Charlemont-preferably both. That's why light rail is the best option-future interoperability with an enhanced Luas.

Ham'nd'egger

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

I think this is really interesting. Is there any official or hinted at statement from the RPA that they intend to operate Luas and Metro on the same tracks? Will they have the same power system?

Given that one Luas line is allegedly "Metro" standard, it would be the obvious assumtion to make. The FAQ section of the RPA website http://www.rpa.ie/?id=327 makes reference to their gauges being identical and the services being "compatible". Nothing more definitive that that.

armada104

Apologies T21 Fan, I was in a bit of a ratty mood last night.

Thanks everyone for your responses. I didn't realise there were so many reasons to go with light rail. The line of sight thing is very interesting. Is there any limit on the length of the trams that can be used (apart from platform length)?

BrianD

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

It won't be big trains like the NY Subway or the Northern Line in London. But it'll be right for Dublin for now and decades to come. The trains will be longer and wider luas types similar to the system in Oporto or Line 54 in Amsterdam. The capacity will be collossal regardless, as the numbers will be based on frequency with 'line of sight' running similar to the Green Line in Boston or the U-Bahn in Hanover.

Metro West will be similar to the current Luas Green Line with level crossings and so on, but will work brilliant. Dublin is a small city, it's doesn't need a New York system. A light rail metro is all we need.

Best of all, CIE will have nothing to do with it's running and operation. So it'll serve the city and not the employees.

It'll be great I promise.

Well at least somebody has been taken in th RPA press department. T21 Fan - you make me laugh. Just because CIE aren't involved with "metro" does not make it a good thing. Remember the RPA have a history of bad project management that has been well documented while the construction of the first 2 Luas lines were underway.

the current RPA proposals couldn't be more wrong for the city and Frank McDonald is right to call for their derailment. Let's hope it happens soon.

Take the Metro West. The only reason it's being built is trying to give something back to what I would call 'victims' of bad planning (and corruption). Sorry about sticking you out here with no transport and services. Here's a badly built tram line that may or may not take you to the airport.

Metro North - a glorified LUAS line. I have no idea why they are calling it a Metro when they should be calling in LUAS Line G (or whatever). Despite costing a fortune they are now telling us that they are going to save money by not putting in escalators, reducing ticket machines etc. Do the RPA think the public are idiots?

At this point we should be looking at what's right for Dublin. At the moment there is no heavy rail line between the Maynooth line in the west and the Belfast line in the east. It would make sense if there was a line running from Swords, serving the airport and into the city. Linking with the interconnector would make also sense. At this point we would have an integrated rail service in Dublin. I really don't care who operates it or builds it. Unfortunately, a lot of what the RPA are proposing does not make sense and they seem to be over reliant on the "better build something than nothing".

murphaph

BrianD wrote: »

I have no idea why they are calling it a Metro when they should be calling in LUAS Line G (or whatever).

They probably should but people are so ignorant that if you say "Luas" they see on street tram, this is actually more like a metro than a premetro as it has 100% segregation. I believe however that when it opens for business it should have the Luas branding.

BrianD wrote: »

At this point we should be looking at what's right for Dublin. At the moment there is no heavy rail line between the Maynooth line in the west and the Belfast line in the east. It would make sense if there was a line running from Swords, serving the airport and into the city. Linking with the interconnector would make also sense. At this point we would have an integrated rail service in Dublin.

Most of the southside would still be without rail based transport. The advantage of expanding Luas as opposed to DART is that Luas is already in Tallaght and Sandyford. The future vision is more underground Luas from Tallaght to the city via Kimmage/Crumlin. The DART/Interconnector can form the 'backbone' with the tram (both under- and overground) and bus feeding into it.

The RPA are working within a budget handed to them by the government. They would pove to build in every bell and whistle, but that's not possible with a finite an=mount of money. We can only ask that they future proof the system as best as possible (leaving recesses for escalators for example).

bk

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Well if you read up a little bit you would know it will be built to have 90m trams running every 2 minutes compared to Luas 40m trams every 5 minutes. Do the maths, it's significantly higher capacity and frequency than the Luas.

I'll save Zoney the effort, based on Aliveandkicking's info above and current Luas capacity (358 in a 40m Luas), then a 90m metro can carry 805.

That means the Luas can currently carry 4296 per hour, whereas the Metro will be able to carry 24150 per hour. That means the Metro will have almost 6 times the capacity of the Luas.

So calling the Metro a Luas is really silly IMO, as they have quiet different characteristics.

The Metro will have:
- almost 6 times the capacity of Luas
- be fully segregated
- travel underground for a lot of it's journey
- be over twice as frequent
- and probably faster

It is similar to Luas in that:
- It is the same track gauge
- It will likely be the same width
- It will be low floor
- It won't be fully signalised
- It will be built and run by the RPA

In fairness I think the differences will far out weight the similarities.

BTW for comparison, London undergrounds 1995 heavy rail trains have a capacity of 914 per train*, compared to 805 for Metro, not all that great a difference really.

* The new carriages they have on order for 2009 have an increased capacity of 1194

bk

BrianD wrote: »

Well at least somebody has been taken in th RPA press department. T21 Fan - you make me laugh. Just because CIE aren't involved with "metro" does not make it a good thing. Remember the RPA have a history of bad project management that has been well documented while the construction of the first 2 Luas lines were underway.

BrianD wrote: »

As opposed to the wonderful project management job that CIE are currently doing with the refurbishment of the DART carriages in Germany and Prague (now 2 years over due).

It is hardly surprising that there were many problems with the construction of the first two Luas lines, as it was after all the first major rail based project in Ireland in 30 years and the first for the RPA.

In fairness the Luas extensions currently undergoing seem to be going along fairly fine, on schedule and without any major comment, so hopefully the RPA has learned their lessons, in particular I hope they have learned from the fine example of the NRA and that the Metro will happen without the same problems.

You can't argue that the RPA and Veolia aren't doing a superb job running the Luas, it is run vastly superior to any CIE service.

BrianD wrote:

At this point we should be looking at what's right for Dublin. At the moment there is no heavy rail line between the Maynooth line in the west and the Belfast line in the east. It would make sense if there was a line running from Swords, serving the airport and into the city. Linking with the interconnector would make also sense. At this point we would have an integrated rail service in Dublin. I really don't care who operates it or builds it. Unfortunately, a lot of what the RPA are proposing does not make sense and they seem to be over reliant on the "better build something than nothing".

How would that even be possible, the Northern line is already beyond capacity. There is no way it could take the extra passengers heading to and from Swords and the Airport.

Plus it ignores all the other people living along the Metro line in North Dublin who will also benefit from it.

IMO the RPA's plans make a lot more sense then yours.

Transport21 Fan

armada104 wrote: »

Apologies T21 Fan, I was in a bit of a ratty mood last night.

No worries

armada104 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your responses. I didn't realise there were so many reasons to go with light rail. The line of sight thing is very interesting. Is there any limit on the length of the trams that can be used (apart from platform length)?

If you ever want to see the line of sight concept in operation and are in Boston, go to the Green Line station at Park Street. You see one light rail train after the other like buses. A Green Line D service will comes in and right in behind it, like inches away, will be an E service.

There are other advantages to light rail as you can do reverse line running at peak hours were in the morning trains can run on both tracks into the city centre and shuffle and move off to get out of the way of other trams. They do this on the Hudson Bergen line in New Jersey and its facinating to watch - an express tram flies past the local one creating a whole myrid of different bespoke in-bound and out-bound services on two tracks.

The longest trams I have heard of is 50 metres - although there maybe multiples and longer ones somewhere. I am sure there is multiple working which get to 90 meters and over running in some cities.

A Dub in Glasgo

Apart from the steel, what is the difference between trams, trolleybuses and something like this that is proposed for the Glasgow Clydeside

BrianD

bk wrote: »

BrianD wrote: »

As opposed to the wonderful project management job that CIE are currently doing with the refurbishment of the DART carriages in Germany and Prague (now 2 years over due).

Why are you comparing to CIE/IR? I really don't care. There seems to be a number of people that seem to be obsessed with RPA v CIE. This is not what we are discussing. My personal belief is that RPA is another CIE and haven't really demonstrated themselves as any better. In any case, this is not about who builds it and operates it's about what is built and where. The RPA have the responsibility for the building of new lines and it concerns me that they coming up with very disappointings routings and costings. They also, clearly, lack vision. Having said that I suppose they are just there to implement Government policy.

You can't argue that the RPA and Veolia aren't doing a superb job running the Luas, it is run vastly superior to any CIE service.

Again you are obsessed with the CIE v Everyone else. This is not what we are really debating. I'm all for farming out the operation of new lines as a public tender and everyone including CIE can apply. However, on this topic I wouldn't agree that Veolila do a great job - they do an adequate job.

How would that even be possible, the Northern line is already beyond capacity. There is no way it could take the extra passengers heading to and from Swords and the Airport.

Plus it ignores all the other people living along the Metro line in North Dublin who will also benefit from it.

IMO the RPA's plans make a lot more sense then yours.

You didn't read my posting at all it appears! I am advocating the construction of a a new line that would connect Swords with the city centre except it would be a full service heavy rail line connected to the interconnector not a half baked cut price Luas line that the RPA are proposing.

BrianD

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

No worries



If you ever want to see the line of sight concept in operation and are in Boston, go to the Green Line station at Park Street. You see one light rail train after the other like buses. A Green Line D service will comes in and right in behind it, like inches away, will be an E service.

There are other advantages to light rail as you can do reverse line running at peak hours were in the morning trains can run on both tracks into the city centre and shuffle and move off to get out of the way of other trams. They do this on the Hudson Bergen line in New Jersey and its facinating to watch - an express tram flies past the local one creating a whole myrid of different bespoke in-bound and out-bound services on two tracks.

The longest trams I have heard of is 50 metres - although there maybe multiples and longer ones somewhere. I am sure there is multiple working which get to 90 meters and over running in some cities.

T21Fan... I have liven in Boston and on the Green Line you refer to. It's probably the oldest of the lines in the system there. It's not great and certainly the service levels aren't as good as either of the LUAS lines in Dublin (though the Boston green line is quite elderly). As for the reverse running you speak of, I have never seen it in operation and I doubt if would be used on any system unless it was in an emergency.

I don't see what you are referring to it as we already have the same type of operation as Bostons Green Line in Dublin with the luas. Furthermore, despite how great you claim the Green Line is the MBTA didn't build go for light rail again. The Red, Blue and Orange lines were built as proper Metro lines with heavier rail cars.

What Boston does do well is that have a central transport authority called the MBTA and all the services - bus, subway, commuter rail and ferries go under the 'T' brand with integrated ticketing.

Ste.phen

There's a lot to be said for the theory behind the Silver Line in Boston
(Electric buses in segregated tunnels for part of the journey, which switch to standard petrol/diesel engines for normal street running)
It's lower capacity than light rail, but in theory has a lwoer infrastructure cost, as tunnels are only built where needed, and the existing road infrastucture can be used where it won't adversely affect the speed of the journey

bk

BrianD wrote: »

bk wrote: »

Again you are obsessed with the CIE v Everyone else. This is not what we are really debating. I'm all for farming out the operation of new lines as a public tender and everyone including CIE can apply. However, on this topic I wouldn't agree that Veolila do a great job - they do an adequate job.

Because I frequently use CIE based services and frankly they are awful. Luas is a pleasure to use in comparison, so it isn't surprising that I and many others it would seem that CIE would be totally incapable of running an efficient Luas or Metro type service. They have already proven their ineptitude with their current services.

BrianD wrote:

You didn't read my posting at all it appears! I am advocating the construction of a a new line that would connect Swords with the city centre except it would be a full service heavy rail line connected to the interconnector not a half baked cut price Luas line that the RPA are proposing.

I did read your post, but I didn't understand what you are proposing and frankly I still don't understand what you are proposing?

Are you proposing a heavy rail line be run underground from the interconnector at Stephens Green, along much the same route as the Metro out to as far as Swords?

Would it have the same stations along the way as Metro?

Please give more detail as to what you exactly you are proposing?

bk

Igy wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for the theory behind the Silver Line in Boston
(Electric buses in segregated tunnels for part of the journey, which switch to standard petrol/diesel engines for normal street running)
It's lower capacity than light rail, but in theory has a lwoer infrastructure cost, as tunnels are only built where needed, and the existing road infrastucture can be used where it won't adversely affect the speed of the journey

I've used it and it is certainly nice, but I don't think it would be suitable for the Metro North route, perhaps some other routes.

Transport21 Fan

I always find the Silver Line in Boston to be painfully slow. Logan Airport compared to Dublin Airport is practically in the city centre anyways. I would suspect that the Metro North journey into Stephen's Green would take about the same time as the Boston Silver Line from Logan to Park Street as well as serve more communitites along the way.

The Silver Line is also a product of the Big Dig. The chance to do something like that for Dublin would most likely have been in the south docklands. But we got Luas and Docklands station which is better than a bus pretending to be a train.

Another thing I found about the Silver Line in Boston is that the frequency is pretty poor considering, and most of the buses are half empty whenever I take them. Given the choice most people take cabs to Logan. Silverline not a network either - just a feeder system to an already well establish and comprehensive urban/suburban rail system in Boston. Something Dublin does not have yet. Building a silver line from Dublin to the city centre would be self-defeating and pointless.

People always want Trains, Metro and Trams over buses and always will. Buses are the commuters choice of last resort. We should be reducing the number of buses in Dublin city as the rail plans unfold and expanding the bus services in outlying GDR in tandem with this. The day of An Larism is coming to an end. Metro, DART, Arrow and Luas are the future. Deal with it.

markpb

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

The day of An Larism is coming to an end. Metro, DART, Arrow and Luas are the future. Deal with it.

The Metro, Arrow and Luas services all terminate in the city centre and the Dart runs through the city centre. Surely they could all be accused of An Larism too or would that spoil your little metaphor?

Even after T21, buses will play a big roll in serving Dublin's transport network (just like they do in other cities) and that's assuming T21 actually happens which is something I wouldn't bet the farm on right now.

Transport21 Fan

bk wrote: »

So calling the Metro a Luas is really silly IMO, as they have quiet different characteristics.

Considering that the 2 unconnected Luas lines in Dublin are coming near to carrying the total numbers of passengers on the entire Irish Rail Inter City, DART and Suburban Rail networks combined, shows that the frequency of Luas is its real advantage. Metro will carry SIX times as many people. If that's not money well spent then I do not know what is.

But 2015 nearly twice as many Irish people should be using Metro and Luas than the entire Irish Rail network and that includes the Interconnector. This will also include IE passengers being delivered customers from the Luas and Metro network.

If some people cannot see the capacity of light rail and metros then they are just wearing blinkers. The whole thing is symbiotic, and Metro North is one linchpin and the Interconnector the other. Everybody wins. Even Dublin Bus/BE who will have less congestion to deal with.

Transport21 Fan

markpb wrote: »

The Metro, Arrow and Luas services all terminate in the city centre and the Dart runs through the city centre. Surely they could all be accused of An Larism too or would that spoil your little metaphor?

You are correct of course, I was talking about An Larism in a BAC sense. That stuff has to end. It causes more congestion than it solves. BAC An Larism is optional and they can easily deal with it.

Buses will have to learn to be feeders and connecting services and this seems to be already happening. Most new routes tend to be cross-town services with some kind of rail connection so it all happening anyways.

murphaph

If the T21 plans for Dublin come to fruition, then buses should become even more important than today-as feeders into the rail system where a rail corridor exists and as the primary radial mode where a rail corridor does not exist. Even post T21 we are decades away for rail-based public transport saturation levels. I would question the need to go this far anyway-a fully integrated complimentary system using all modes is the way ahead for this city.

Winters

How the ultimate stated Metro North 20K passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) capacity is achieved:

Each Metro North vehicle will be, at its longest, 90m long carrying 670 passengers.

Shortest headway we are told is 2 mins per direction = 30 trams per hour.

670*30=20,100.

(A possible 1.5 min headway could achieve 670*40=25,600 pphpd)


The service will more than likely start with 4 min headways and 50 m or 60 m trams in 2013/2014 and ramp up thereafter according to demand.

Source: Independant Drumcondra Route Options Review.



Metro West stops are going to take 50 m trams at the start at 4 min minimum headways which could give 358*15=5,370 pphpd.

Id imagine that if it increased to 90 m trams like Metro North and even 3 min headways than it could take 13,400 pphpd.

Does that answer your question?

bk

Winters wrote: »

Each Metro North vehicle will be, at its longest, 90m long carrying 670 passengers.

.....

Metro West stops are going to take 50 m trams at the start at 4 min minimum headways which could give 358*15=5,370 pphpd.

I'm curious where you got these figures from. The current 40m Luas trams have a capacity of 358 passengers. So surely the 50m Metros would have a capacity of 447 and 90m 805?

Or am I missing something?

strassenwolf

Perhaps they are taking into account that there will be a lot more suitcases travelling on this particular line than would be normal on the LUAS?

Winters

The system will be designed to carry 20,000 passengers per hour each way between
Lissenhall and St.Stephens Green. There will be a service headway of 2 minutes. Each
vehicle will be 90m long carrying 670 passengers

Source: Independant Drumcondra Route Options Review

Thats for Metro North, for Metro West I think I meant to say 40m trams instead (Sorry) because a figure hasnt been given for 50m trams.

Q. How big are the stops likely to be?
A. The stops will initially be approximately 60 metres long but will be designed such that they can be extended to up to 100m. Each platform will be approximately 3 metres wide, just like Luas.

Q. How many people can Metro West carry?
A. Initially Metro West will be designed to carry similar volumes of passengers as Luas. (up to circa 5,000 ppdph). It will however be designed to allow an upgrade in capacity as required and Metro West will ultimately have a carrying capacity of over 10,000 passengers per direction, per hour

Source: rpa.ie

Metro West will have 60m platforms (10m of which are ramps), you could pro-rata it I suppose, if you wish. Nevertheless the thread is about Metro North.

Prof_V

The figures I have for Luas capacity (from the Irish Railway Record Society's booklet on Luas) are 56 seated and 198 standing for a 30m vehicle, 80 and 276 for 40m. However, the 1998 Atkins report quotes 270 at 4 per square metre for a 40m vehicle, so the IRRS figures must be 6 per square metre.

Assuming a 90m Metro vehicle to be just a Luas tram stretched by adding 10m extension modules, you get 866 at 6 per square metre or 644 at 4 per square metre. A 50m tram, on similar assumptions, comes out at 458 or 340, respectively.

I'd say the reason for the "light rail" moniker is track gauge. And the reason for that is most likely for easier rolling stock availability. The problem CIÉ have with heavy rail lines here is that when ordering new rolling stock/locomotives/railcars they need to conform to a non-standard gauge of 5'3" (1600mm) rather than the standard 4'8½" (1435mm) used in most parts of the world.

There were considerations to lease some BR Class 222 units a few years back but these were shelved - I'd say the resulting gauge mods would have been part of the problem, but it would have given us 125mph capable trains if it had went ahead. The DART also uses a non standard electrical system which makes things even more difficult. So by building the line to standard gauge a standard design can be used with little or no modification.

BrianD

Karsini wrote: »

I'd say the reason for the "light rail" moniker is track gauge. And the reason for that is most likely for easier rolling stock availability. The problem CIÉ have with heavy rail lines here is that when ordering new rolling stock/locomotives/railcars they need to conform to a non-standard gauge of 5'3" (1600mm) rather than the standard 4'8½" (1435mm) used in most parts of the world.

There were considerations to lease some BR Class 222 units a few years back but these were shelved - I'd say the resulting gauge mods would have been part of the problem, but it would have given us 125mph capable trains if it had went ahead. The DART also uses a non standard electrical system which makes things even more difficult. So by building the line to standard gauge a standard design can be used with little or no modification.

It's already been discussed here. The IR rail guage is not an issue. Irish Rail have been able to source new trains from around the world - Japan, Korea, Spain, Germany ... The Enterprise units are supposed to be the same as the Eurorail units etc. I doubt if there is such a thing as "off the shelf" trains, all trains will be built to order so anything the buyer wants can be incorporated.

I wasn't aware that DART used a non-standard elctrical system but if there is, it is the standard in this country and there seems to be no problem in getting the three types of DART train sets to work on it and in tandem with each other.

BrianD

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

Considering that the 2 unconnected Luas lines in Dublin are coming near to carrying the total numbers of passengers on the entire Irish Rail Inter City, DART and Suburban Rail networks combined, shows that the frequency of Luas is its real advantage. Metro will carry SIX times as many people. If that's not money well spent then I do not know what is.

But 2015 nearly twice as many Irish people should be using Metro and Luas than the entire Irish Rail network and that includes the Interconnector. This will also include IE passengers being delivered customers from the Luas and Metro network.

If some people cannot see the capacity of light rail and metros then they are just wearing blinkers. The whole thing is symbiotic, and Metro North is one linchpin and the Interconnector the other. Everybody wins. Even Dublin Bus/BE who will have less congestion to deal with.

You should go into politics ... you have a great expertese in massaging figures.

The fact of the matter the Government never built or invested in the DART as they should have. Leaving aside the malaise that may exist in IR the DART is operating on legacy equipment and signalling. There is absolutely no doubt that we need an authority that should be upping the ante on existing infrastructure. On one hand the Gov wants the RPA to build shiny new lines but on the otherhand we have nobody that says we need that one upgraded to this standard and capacity.

Again you seem to be more interested in dealing with RPA v CIE issues (yawn, yawn yawn) then accepting that the RPA are getting it wrong in regarding the Metro.

BrianD

bk wrote:

I did read your post, but I didn't understand what you are proposing and frankly I still don't understand what you are proposing?

Are you proposing a heavy rail line be run underground from the interconnector at Stephens Green, along much the same route as the Metro out to as far as Swords?

Would it have the same stations along the way as Metro?

Please give more detail as to what you exactly you are proposing?

Aha! You did understand my posting then. I personally believe that for this line, heavy rail is the way foward. I wouldn't entirely agree with the current metro routing either but I gather that there is probably some movement there.

Igy wrote:

There's a lot to be said for the theory behind the Silver Line in Boston
(Electric buses in segregated tunnels for part of the journey, which switch to standard petrol/diesel engines for normal street running)
It's lower capacity than light rail, but in theory has a lwoer infrastructure cost, as tunnels are only built where needed, and the existing road infrastucture can be used where it won't adversely affect the speed of the journey

I have used it and I wouldn't be a great fan. I got the impression that it was a project that may have run out of funding. Enough money to build some of the infrastructure but not enough to put trains into it. Would I be correct in saying that it is upgradable in the future?

markpb

BrianD wrote: »

Aha! You did understand my posting then. I personally believe that for this line, heavy rail is the way foward. I wouldn't entirely agree with the current metro routing either but I gather that there is probably some movement there.

Maybe he did but I still don't. You said:

It would make sense if there was a line running from Swords, serving the airport and into the city. Linking with the interconnector would make also sense.

Isn't what you and the RPA are suggesting absolutely identical except one is HRT and the other is LRT? They both run from Swords to the Green / Interconnector via the airport. You keep putting down the metro without explaining your reasons. Apart from LRT, why don't you like it? What route would you prefer? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious what your reasons are.

Oh and for the uninformed, what's the difference between LRT and HRT or is it just capacity?

Transport21 Fan

BrianD wrote: »

It's already been discussed here. The IR rail guage is not an issue. Irish Rail have been able to source new trains from around the world - Japan, Korea, Spain, Germany ... The Enterprise units are supposed to be the same as the Eurorail units etc.

Gauge is becoming a issue for IE as the major industry players are developing more modular rail technology, Seimiens, Toshiba etc. When it comes time for IE to order their next batch of locos it's going to be really tricky. The last batch the 201's are too heavy for some of the Irish Rail network as this beast was all they could get at the time which could be converted to Irish gauge.

Gauge was an issue in the past and will be more so in the future. Hence why no tilting trains and so on IE and no hope for them. As the technology becomes more standardised and technical, Irish Rail will sadly find it more and more difficult to get these new generation of trains. Nothing they can do about it really.

BrianD wrote: »

I doubt if there is such a thing as "off the shelf" trains, all trains will be built to order so anything the buyer wants can be incorporated.

Yes there is.

This is another huge advantage Luas and in future Metro will have over Irish Rail. The Luas Citadis 'off the shelf' units are in operation in cities all over the world. They are constantly being improved, spare parts are easy to get. Look how quickly the 10M sections were ordered as soon as the RPA had the money. They were literally taken 'off the shelf' at the Asltrom warehouse wrapped in bubble-wrap and sent to Dublin.

The Luas is a perfect example of an "off the shelf" rail system, while Irish Rail is and always will be a railway idiosyncratic oddity having to make-do. They have always had trouble sourcing tenders for train orders. It's always going to be a major problem for IE to aquire rolling stock and one day in this country we are going to have to wake up to the fact that only a new standard gauge high speed line connecting Belfast-Dublin-Cork using "off the shelf" equipment is the only way Ireland will ever get modern inter-city rail services. The Spanish and the Portuguese have this already figured out.

Ireland will always have a world class Light Rail and Metro system and sub-standard heavy rail system because of the gauge. Inchicore are doomed to this historical legacy. Just a fact of life and in the past they did well to make do, but in the future as production of railway rolling stock becomes more standardised and modular, Irish Rail may have to return to being the chop-shop they were in the 1980's and 90's in order to keep the show on the road. I suspect that Berry's scrapyard hasn't heard the last from Inchicore looking for a bit oul gear they can reguage.

In 2020 I can see it now, former HST unit from West Coast Main Line with Irish bogies... Don't say it won't happen either.

RIP IT UP AND START AGAIN!

bk

BrianD wrote: »

Aha! You did understand my posting then. I personally believe that for this line, heavy rail is the way foward. I wouldn't entirely agree with the current metro routing either but I gather that there is probably some movement there.

I originally didn't get it, there has only ever been three serious proposals put forward, the original crappy cheap Metro, the current good Metro and a heavy rail spur off the Northern line.

It was the last that I thought you were originally talking about and I think we can both agree that it is a very bad option.

You idea of heavy rail on the Metro route is interesting and worth discussing.

The advantage is it would allow about an extra 200 - 300 passengers per train, but I'm not really sure the extra capacity is required?

Metro can do 24,000 per hour per direction, which is 6 times the Luas, seems to be more then sufficient (FYI, Swords has a population of 34,000).

The disadvantage is that it would probably cost about an extra billion euros (due to more complicated signalling, electrics and cost of carriages).

It couldn't integrate with the Luas Green line and would unfortunately be run by CIE (yes I know yawn, but it is an important point for me and seemingly many others).

Also Transport21 Fan points about standardised Metro equipment versus no standard Dart equipment makes a lot of sense to me.

The RPA certainly seemed to very quickly buy and add the extra 10m to the existing trams, it seemed to be a very painless process. On the other hand, IR can't even seem to get 20 Dart carriages refurbished, taking over two years.

If IR needed to buy new Dart carriages tomorrow (which they really do), while they certainly could make a special order, it would probably take very long to complete and probably cost twice as much as standard equipment. I really get the impression that if the RPA needed to do the same, they could get them very quickly.

It is not an unimportant point. I just don't see that much advantage to using heavy rail in the tunnel versus lightrail.

Is dual gauge 1435/1600mm track possible? Or are they too close?

Transport21 Fan

Dual gauge is technically possible but legally not in this country for loads of reason and all of them sound.

This kind of 'CIE or Bust' crusade still going on was sorted out years ago when the Luas was taken out of the hand of the CIE Light Rail Office (Blessing Upon They Who Decided This) and turned it over the RPA. From what I recall the Government at the time had to literally force the CIE heads to put tracks on the Harcourt Street line - they wanted a busway.

Still going on about Luas/Metro not standard gauge in 2007 is like some wishful thinking to go back to the CIE Monopoly of the past and try and fix something which has worked out to be fantastic. It's rooted in this notion that the Luas was a failure and should of been a CIE train driven by a bloke called Anto who got the job cos' his old man was a CIE train driver too.

The very idea of even remotely trying to put across the idea that Luas is a failure is really odd to me. The two Luas lines are carrying numbers of passengers which CIE took decades to achieved. The answer for this is simple. The Luas is excellent considering the limitations imposed upon it by Cowardly Bertie and Co. In fact, it's the greatest piece of public transport in the history of the state.

Best of all the Metro will be even superior to that. So what's the problem? If anything is the RPA which should reform Irish Rail and not the other way around.

I know there are a some soviet-wannabe headbangers, CIE union extremists and a fair few "gay for CIE" types on this board, but at some point they are all going to have to accept that the millions of people who use the Luas every year are there for modern service which CIE has never and still does not offer its passengers.

It's a different world now and CIE are no longer holding all the cards and the vast majority of Irish people are happy with this.