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

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Sorry Sam, hope you don't mind, I just want to say thanks to strassenwo!f for outlining his idea. Much clearer now.

It is an interesting idea, but not a hope in hell in happening. That is a 5 billion+ project, without the cost of DU. Unfortunately not a hope.

The best we can hope for is that Metro North in some form happens.

If they can cheaply upgrade the Green Luas line, then that is the icing on top IMO and more then what we originally thought would happen.

Hopefully while building Stephens Green station, they can also put in place the ability for a future spur to Rathmines, etc. and hopefully the Luas Green Line will eventually get extended into Finglas. But I see non of this happening until the new Metro North is built. That really is priority number one IMO.

I do not want to continue this crayon fest, but a simple question that is nearly on topic.

Can Metro North trains run on Luas lines, and vice versa?

In other words, do they run on the same gauge and overhead electricity lines?

If so, it might allow another trip to the Crayola shop for lots of bright colours.

Avada

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not want to continue this crayon fest, but a simple question that is nearly on topic.

Can Metro North trains run on Luas lines, and vice versa?

In other words, do they run on the same gauge and overhead electricity lines?

If so, it might allow another trip to the Crayola shop for lots of bright colours.

Yes, they're supposed to be the same guage and overhead power, unlike DU which is Irish Rail guage.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not want to continue this crayon fest, but a simple question that is nearly on topic.

Can Metro North trains run on Luas lines, and vice versa?

In other words, do they run on the same gauge and overhead electricity lines?

If so, it might allow another trip to the Crayola shop for lots of bright colours.

The Green line and Red line have the same running gauge but different inter-axial gauges. Which in lay mans terms means that MN trains will be able to run on the Green line but not on the Red. Now if for some operational reason they needed a Metro train at the red line depot it might be possible to get it there at night when it wouldn't encounter an other tram. All this is assuming the Metro trains are wider than current trams as was/is planned

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Green line and Red line have the same running gauge but different inter-axial gauges. Which in lay mans terms means that MN trains will be able to run on the Green line but not on the Red. Now if for some operational reason they needed a Metro train at the red line depot it might be possible to get it there at night when it wouldn't encounter an other tram. Assuming the Metro trains are wider than current trams

Maybe on the Red line, it could pass a Luas but not another Metro.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe on the Red line, it could pass a Luas but not another Metro.

I think and don't quote me on this at some places on the Red Line the 2 Luas trams just about make it past each other

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Can Metro North trains run on Luas lines, and vice versa?

In other words, do they run on the same gauge and overhead electricity lines?

Yes to all.

At least as planned for the original Metro North (and I would assume it hasn't changed, no reason too), Luas and the Metro are both fully compatible light rail.

Both standard gauge, 750 V DC and with the same signalling system.

Metro was planned to be a basically supped up Luas. Basically the same, but longer trains, slightly wider and much higher frequencies and speeds due to full segregation (no street running).

And even better they always had this idea for the Green Line, so at least the sections of the green line south of Stephens Green were built with extra space between the tracks to allow room for wider Metro trains in future

It would still require some work. Making the station platforms longer. Closing road crossings to increase segregation, etc.

But in the bigger scheme of things, a pretty "cheap" and "easy" upgrade that would greatly increase the capacity of the Green line into they city, reduce journey times and better connectivity. It would go along way to help with overcrowding on the line and allow for lots more apartments to be built to the south of the city along the line.

The only potential expensive bit is the extra tunnelling south of Stephens Green and where it might tie in. Which is why this aspect is getting discussed. The longer the tunnel and more expensive the tie in (more CPOing, etc.), then the less likely it is to happen IMO.

Avada

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Green line and Red line have the same running gauge but different inter-axial gauges. Which in lay mans terms means that MN trains will be able to run on the Green line but not on the Red. Now if for some operational reason they needed a Metro train at the red line depot it might be possible to get it there at night when it wouldn't encounter an other tram. All this is assuming the Metro trains are wider than current trams as was/is planned

Hadn't realised this, interesting.

Sam Russell

How does that affect the option of driverless Metro trains? Could driverless Metros operate on the Green line - even mixed in with trams?

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

How does that affect the option of driverless Metro trains? Could driverless Metros operate on the Green line - even mixed in with trams?

The Green line as we know it won't exist if upgraded . The rump line from Broombridge to Charlemont will remain the Green line with trams the rest of the line will be Metro only, there will be no mixing.

The rump line will be operationally disconnected from the Metro.

Driverless technology is still in the experimental phase for shared space Trams/Metros

LeinsterDub

Also the thing to remember is that inter axial gauge is a other way of saying over the course of the entire line what's the nearest the two lines come to each other. So the majority of the red line might be have significant inter axial gauge and could be upgraded in some long off future. I don't know the actual details here.

monument

LeinsterDub wrote: »

All this is assuming the Metro trains are wider than current trams as was/is planned

That was the original plan or at least they left scope for it.

Metro North was designed with trams the same width as Luas, just longer.

LeinsterDub

monument wrote: »

That was the original plan or at least they left scope for it.

Metro North was designed with trams the same width as Luas, just longer.

I don't believe so. They where to be wider

monument

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't believe so. They where to be wider

They were, before the RPA got to planning they changed the width to that of a standard tram.

It is proposed to accommodate longer light metro vehicles (LMVs), beyond the capacity of an on-street light rail system, and operating at higher frequency. The scheme would operate using 45m long LMVs coupled together to form 90m trainsets. The metro vehicle would be essentially an underground version that would be similar to the vehicles operated on Luas.

The LMVs would be bi-directional, 2.4m wide and approximately 45m long and would operate in a set of two coupled vehicles. Seats for about 80 passengers, baggage storage and other designated facilities for the mobility impaired would be provided. Drivers’ cabs would be air conditioned and passenger saloons would be equipped with a heating and ventilation
system. A fleet of 86 LMVs would be required to operate services at a frequency of two minutes. The proposed scheme would initially operate services at a frequency of four minutes during the peak hour, requiring a fleet of 44 metro vehicles.

http://www.pleanala.ie/news/na0003/rNA0003.pdf

1.6.4.6 Vehicles
The LMVs are bi-directional, 2.4m wide and approximately 45m long, and will operate in a set of two coupled vehicles. Seats for about 80 passengers, baggage storage and other designated facilities for the mobility impaired will be provided.

http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/railway-orders/eis-metro-north/EIS%20Metro%20North%20Non-Technical%20Summary.pdf

strassenwo!f

bk wrote: »

Sorry Sam, hope you don't mind, I just want to say thanks to strassenwo!f for outlining his idea. Much clearer now.

It is an interesting idea, but not a hope in hell in happening. That is a 5 billion+ project, without the cost of DU. Unfortunately not a hope.

I'm glad it's clear.

Something like what I was suggesting will hopefully happen eventually, and that was my little contribution as to how metro north might, in time, tie in effectively with other parts of a growing network.

Because when metro north is finally built there will inevitably be a clamour for a similar level of service in other parts of the city.

Doing a David Drumm estimate, broadly based on a figure of 2-2.5 billion euro for the metro north between Swords and St. Stephen's Green, I'd say it would be much closer to 10 billion to deliver all of what I was suggesting above. Tack on another 3 for the DART Underground project and build all of it over a period of 26 years, and you're still only looking at 500 million a year to set up many parts of Dublin for the next 150 or so.

To put that in perspective, it is now almost 12 years since Martin Cullen trumpeted the metro north project in his Transport21 plan - with the basic idea having been around for a number of years before that.

LeinsterDub

monument wrote: »

They were, before the RPA got to planning they changed the width to that of a standard tram.

In which case they could run on the Red line except for the fact they are too long

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Something like what I was suggesting will hopefully happen eventually, and that was my little contribution as to how metro north might, in time, tie in effectively with other parts of a growing network.

Then I apologise. I thought you were suggesting this for the current Metro project. Say over the next 10 years. Obviously given the expense of what you were suggesting, it would be a non starter. But over 26 years, then that is a whole different matter and I agree with a lot of what you describe, it not all of it.

Though the future, non current Metro-North/Dublin Metro sections should probably be discussed in it's own separate thread.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Because when metro north is finally built there will inevitably be a clamour for a similar level of service in other parts of the city.

I agree completely and I've said exactly this a few times in the past. We need to pop our cherry so to speak on big expensive underground rail projects.

Once this MN/DM is up and running and proven itself, which I'm so it will, they were be public clamour for more projects like this, just like the Luas did. Dart Underground and extensions to the Metro will be built on this foundation for generations to come.

lateconnection

Sam Russell wrote: »

How does that affect the option of driverless Metro trains? Could driverless Metros operate on the Green line - even mixed in with trams?

Driverless is definitely the way to go. I was in London recently and I have to say, the Jubilee line service frequency is impressive. Trains every 90 seconds, all thanks to the SelTrac S40 moving block system. The trains are automated but have a train operator on board who opens and closes the doors.

I was on the DLR also, sat at the front of the train and the train was fully driverless. No train operator on the train at all.

If this system could be implemented on Dublin Metro, fully automated and driverless, computer operates the doors and no driver required, it would be fantastic, and 24 hour operation could also be a reality.

If the road crossings on the green line were closed, and the metro went underground in Ballymun, this could easily be implemented with great results.

trellheim

can anyone fill me in as to what the current status of this is, please

A really good source told me it was likely to go back onto the burner

MJohnston

trellheim wrote: »

can anyone fill me in as to what the current status of this is, please

A really good source told me it was likely to go back onto the burner

Now that's an odd turn of phrase you went for

We're unlikely to hear anything official until Budget time, so October 10th.

marno21

trellheim wrote: »

can anyone fill me in as to what the current status of this is, please

A really good source told me it was likely to go back onto the burner

It's currently being designed, but the new Taoiseach is more enthusiastic than the old Taoiseach. We won't hear anything until September but so far the positive index is going up quite a bit.

strassenwo!f

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Green line as we know it won't exist if upgraded . The rump line from Broombridge to Charlemont will remain the Green line with trams the rest of the line will be Metro only, there will be no mixing.

The rump line will be operationally disconnected from the Metro.

Driverless technology is still in the experimental phase for shared space Trams/Metros

Could you provide some source for this information, and some logic behind it?

There are very good safety reasons why 'metro' trains - in the normal European sense - shouldn't share track with trams, and also why heavy rail trains shouldn't share track with metros (or trams).

It does occasionally happen. (Munich, for example, a place whose public transport network I generally much admire, still has such an arrangement).

But, as I understand it, Dublin is now planning to have to have a 'metro' with vehicles which are 60 metres long. This is quite different to the original 90-metre vehicles, which might indeed have been incompatible sharing a route with 50-metre trams along the main body of the southside Green Line.

I don't see any great difficulty with a 60-metre 'metro' vehicle sharing the same track with a 50-metre LUAS, to provide a fine service to/from suburbs and important employment areas in South-East Dublin.

The LUAS will, of course, be subject to the normal vagaries of overground travel across the city. The 'metro' aspect of this southern corridor - which, as I posted above, will hopefully come from Broadstone - should be able to provide a fairly steady 'metro' train every 4 minutes.

But, all going well with the overground LUAS, that should provide a 50-metre tram and a 60-metre 'metro' along that corridor, every two minutes. And no safety issues.

What could be better?

MJohnston

Why on earth would you want or need to run a Luas on the same line as a Metro?

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Could you provide some source for this information, and some logic behind it?

There are very good safety reasons why 'metro' trains - in the normal European sense - shouldn't share track with trams, and also why heavy rail trains shouldn't share track with metros (or trams).

It does occasionally happen. (Munich, for example, a place whose public transport network I generally much admire, still has such an arrangement).

But, as I understand it, Dublin is now planning to have to have a 'metro' with vehicles which are 60 metres long. This is quite different to the original 90-metre vehicles, which might indeed have been incompatible sharing a route with 50-metre trams along the main body of the southside Green Line.

I don't see any great difficulty with a 60-metre 'metro' vehicle sharing the same track with a 50-metre LUAS, to provide a fine service to/from suburbs and important employment areas in South-East Dublin.

The LUAS will, of course, be subject to the normal vagaries of overground travel across the city. The 'metro' aspect of this southern corridor - which, as I posted above, will hopefully come from Broadstone - should be able to provide a fairly steady 'metro' train every 4 minutes.

But, all going well with the overground LUAS, that should provide a 50-metre tram and a 60-metre 'metro' along that corridor, every two minutes. And no safety issues.

What could be better?

Honestly what are you talking about? I was talking about internal axial distance for some reason your talking about length

strassenwo!f

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: Can we stick to Metro North.

If you want to wield crayons, then there is full colour options on other threads like
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057743805 or http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055630770
or even open a new one.

Lots of possibilities, but not here.

Sam, I think you will struggle to find any city in the world which has built a metro line and isn't now planning to build a second one.

Obviously, the big step for Dublin, if it decides to do so, is to start building. Even before that happens, Dublin needs to have some idea of how that first line is going to fit in with things like the proposed DART Underground, how it's going to fit in with other metro lines to different parts of the city, etc.

Dublin is no different from other cities. If the first metro line is built, there's inevitably going to be a second.

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sam, I think you will struggle to find any city in the world which has built a metro line and isn't now planning to build a second one.

Obviously, the big step for Dublin, if it decides to do so, is to start building. Even before that happens, Dublin needs to have some idea of how that first line is going to fit in with things like the proposed DART Underground, how it's going to fit in with other metro lines to different parts of the city, etc.

Dublin is no different from other cities. If the first metro line is built, there's inevitably going to be a second.

No one is doubting that.

What is clear is that, at present we have ONE Metro project active, and this thread is for discussion that project ONLY. There are no plans for any future tie ins or provisions for further Metros so they have no business being discussed here.

Current active Metro North plans only here. Create/use a different thread for other Metro discussion. No further discussion of this topic.

strassenwo!f

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Honestly what are you talking about? I was talking about internal axial distance for some reason your talking about length

The LUAS currently runs comfortably along the Green LUAS line, with 40-50 metre trams. It may well need to be upgraded to accomodate the metro, with 60-metre vehicles.

Could you explain, please, how this upgrade is going to prevent the LUAS, with its 50-metre vehicles, from running on the same line.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Could you explain, please, how this upgrade is going to prevent the LUAS, with its 50-metre vehicles, from running on the same line.

Could you explain why it would be useful for it to do so?

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

Could you explain why it would be useful for it to do so?

There are a number of reasons, but two which stand out are:

There is a depot in Sandyford. I'm not sure if there are extra depot arrangements for the cross-city line, but it seems likely that some LUAS vehicles will be using the Sandyford depot.

This metro/LUAS arrangement would provide a higher frequency on this segregated section than could be provided on the city street section. Seems sensible to me.

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There is a depot in Sandyford. I'm not sure if there are extra depot arrangements for the cross-city line, but it seems likely that some LUAS vehicles will be using the Sandyford depot.

There is a new depot at Broombridge which would handle the Luas trams for the line as far as Charlemont.

Of course, it is likely the Luas could still operate on the line to Sandyford for one off maintenance needs, just not regular.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This metro/LUAS arrangement would provide a higher frequency on this segregated section than could be provided on the city street section. Seems sensible to me.

I simply can't think of a single journey that would actually benefit from it.

I can't think of a single journey that a person sitting in Sandyford would opt to take a Luas tram rather then a Metro for. So there really is no point in regulalry mixing the two. It would complicate operations and might negatively impact the speed and frequency of the Metro.

The beauty of Luas (and Metro) versus heavy rail is it's simplicity. It's simplicity makes it easy to operate and to do so at high frequencies.

We have all seen the issues of trying to operate DART's, commuter trains and intercity trains though the heavy rail network. We really don't want to repeat those issues with light rail.

Keep it simple stupid (kiss principle).

strassenwo!f

DART and Arrow services share the same route and people don't seem to find it unnecessarily complicated.

I can't see why LUAS and metro should be any different.