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

MJohnston

lawred2 wrote: »

surely the cost is in the boring?

once it's done surely they might as well make the platforms 90m

I don't know whether the platforms were shorter to save on train costs perhaps, but yeah, the main cost would be in the excavation. But, it's more expensive, probably exponentially more expensive in fact, to do the additional excavation after the fact.

CatInABox

lawred2 wrote: »

surely the cost is in the boring?

once it's done surely they might as well make the platforms 90m

Boring and station box construction are pretty much separate. Each station box has to be dug out from above, and that's where the cost is. A 90m station will usually require a 90m hole in the ground during construction.

lawred2

CatInABox wrote: »

Boring and station box construction are pretty much separate. Each station box has to be dug out from above, and that's where the cost is. A 90m station will usually require a 90m hole in the ground during construction.

so it's irrelevant then... If they do 60m stations then it's likely that they will stay that way

Muahahaha

Well I doubt future expansion could be done without closing down stations for a significant period of time. So if 60m platforms go ahead now then that is the way it will stay by the looks of it.

CatInABox

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well I doubt future expansion could be done without closing down stations for a significant period of time. So if 60m platforms go ahead now then that is the way it will stay by the looks of it.

Pretty much.

I'd imagine that when (not if) the metro hits capacity, the government of the time will say "how could we ever have predicted that people would want to use effective public transport in such number?", then they'll start looking at options to fix the problem, at which point they'll say "How could we ever have predicted that it would cost so much to fix??", and then they'll announce a BRT fudge, and say "No one actually wants a fast effective public transport system, the people cramming onto the Metro are the problem, they're all just trainspotters really, the saps."

S***E.

Idbatterim

can they not start of with 60m like the luas and expand the length of the trams? Christ even having this discussion is boiling my blood!

so that initially saves on tram costs. but at least with the underground build to 90m platforms!

I am only proposing this as all these morons care about is price and not value for money!!!

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

can they not start of with 60m like the luas and expand the length of the trams? Christ even having this discussion is boiling my blood!

so that initially saves on tram costs. but at least with the underground build to 90m platforms!

I am only proposing this as all these morons care about is price and not value for money!!!

Green line is already at 53M and 2.30 minute frequency . 60M is too short.

Idbatterim

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Green line is already at 53M and 2.30 minute frequency . 60M is too short.

I absolutely and sincerely hope then that the 60m is done, that it is 90m from the get go and is written off as a "cost saving measure" :rolleyes:

Idbatterim

can they make this line driverless or rather, why shouldnt it be? With the type of frequency it will operate along with the high level of segregation and the hours that it will have to run given that it is serving the airport...

also throw in the regular as clock work strikes. They bang on about cost as one of the issues the original scheme was shelved, what would the pay back time of driver v driverless be I wonder?

plodder

CatInABox wrote: »

Boring and station box construction are pretty much separate. Each station box has to be dug out from above, and that's where the cost is. A 90m station will usually require a 90m hole in the ground during construction.

There must be more options that that. While a station box has a pretty big footprint on the surface (at construction time), it has to be possible to design ahead of time, potential for extending the platforms, without having to change the surface footprint, or even that of the main station area itself.

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Green line is already at 53M and 2.30 minute frequency . 60M is too short.

The size of the carriages aren’t quite directly comparable purely on length though.

CatInABox

plodder wrote: »

There must be more options that that. While a station box has a pretty big footprint on the surface (at construction time), it has to be possible to design ahead of time, potential for extending the platforms, without having to change the surface footprint, or even that of the main station area itself.

If the idea is to reduce cost, then not really.

It is possible to extend platforms through manual digging underground, but it's expensive, and will shut not just the station, but the line as well.

If it's built to 60m, then it'll stay 60m, and that's just a political reality. If it was happening in other countries, then I'd say yes, it's entirely possible that a 60m platform could be extended to 90m, but then again, in other countries, 60m platforms wouldn't be built.

D.L.R.

A 90m platform does not need a 90m hole on the surface. Platforms are essentially tunnels, you bore them.

Grandeeod

In the 1950s we went with the Dieselisation of the rail network. Against advice we opted to go with an English company. We ended up spending loads more money on fixing the locos.

In the 1980s we ploughed ahead with the M50. Despite obvious problems we continued building it into the 2000s. We then spent loads more money buying out a toll bridge cartel and upgrading the M50.

The luas red line was introduced in 2004 with shorter trams than the green line. The RPA rejected criticism. Not long after the trams on the red line were lengthened. More money after the event. Fortunately the platforms were originally built to facilitate the longer trams.

I could go on presenting examples involving PT and roads. Even the building of buses for CIE in the early 80s was filled full of political and semi state chicanery resulting in inferior vehicles and job losses in the private sector.. The trend is pretty clear and it hasn't changed all that much. Procrastinate, debate, revise, postpone, reinvent, pay more in the long run. That is the destination for MN and DU if ever they are completed.

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

The size of the carriages aren’t quite directly comparable purely on length though.

The last I heard here they were. But it's all up in the air for now

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

can they make this line driverless or rather, why shouldnt it be? With the type of frequency it will operate along with the high level of segregation and the hours that it will have to run given that it is serving the airport...

also throw in the regular as clock work strikes. They bang on about cost as one of the issues the original scheme was shelved, what would the pay back time of driver v driverless be I wonder?

Driverless technology hasn't progressed far enough for the on street sections of the green line south of ssg

donvito99

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Driverless technology hasn't progressed far enough for the on street sections of the green line south of ssg

What on-street sections? It's entirely segregated to Sandyford, other than a handful of road crossings.

LeinsterDub

donvito99 wrote: »

What on-street sections? It's entirely segregated to Sandyford, other than a handful of road crossings.

It's not fully segregated from pedestrians.

sdanseo

Idbatterim wrote: »

can they make this line driverless or rather, why shouldnt it be?

Speaking purely of SSG-Estuary section - they shouldn't even consider it, but it wouldn't surprise me if with the "optimised" design money is saved with a couple of at-grade crossings, especially around Swords.

plodder

D.L.R. wrote: »

A 90m platform does not need a 90m hole on the surface. Platforms are essentially tunnels, you bore them.

Exactly. After both the tunnel is bored and the station excavated, it should "only" be a matter of extending out 15m either side of the box with a widened tunnel. Costly, I'm sure, but a lot less so, than doing it after the line starts operating, which in reality isn't really feasible at all. It would be a shame for the present Taoiseach who is already associated with one piece of forward thinking associated with this project, to reject another chance.

cgcsb

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Driverless technology hasn't progressed far enough for the on street sections of the green line south of ssg

In Dubai they're bringing in driverless cars that interact with other traffic on a public road. So yes a driverless system is certainly possible on a fixed rail system with only a few at-grade intersections, with current tech.

MJohnston

The main barrier to driverless tech here is jobs, and the political implications of not adding them.

That could be offset if we'd ever had a government that was interested in pushing IT as a vital skill for children to be learning in school, and thus a native workforce that could be employed behind the scenes of driverless systems.

LeinsterDub

cgcsb wrote: »

In Dubai they're bringing in driverless cars that interact with other traffic on a public road. So yes a driverless system is certainly possible on a fixed rail system with only a few at-grade intersections, with current tech.

http://www.tautonline.com/world-ready-driverless-trams/

I suppose in 10 years time by the time it opens it should be ready.

AlmightyCushion

MJohnston wrote: »

The main barrier to driverless tech here is jobs, and the political implications of not adding them.

That could be offset if we'd ever had a government that was interested in pushing IT as a vital skill for children to be learning in school, and thus a native workforce that could be employed behind the scenes of driverless systems.

I don't think that's much of a barrier at all. After, all the transport strikes over the past year or two, I've heard a lot of people in support of driverless tech. A lot of people are sick to their back teeth of transport strikes and have no sympathy for the workers any more. They'll be happy it's driverless.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

The main barrier to driverless tech here is jobs, and the political implications of not adding them.

It is likely that a driverless train requires a 'conductor' or 'guard' or whatever they would be called, who would close the doors, check the tickets, deal with trouble, etc. So no jobs lost.

When is the last time you saw a Lift Operator controlling a lift? At one time, every lift had an operator, but automation got rid of them. At one time every bus had a conductor who sold tickets and rang the bell. I think it is quite acceptable to have driverless trains, and maybe even operatorless trains.

Just look at London's Docklands Railway. It would be a good model to follow for Metro North, particularly the 'start small and expand' way of implementing it. We could start with the Swords - Dublin Airport - Phibsboro (or wherever) part of the build - the bit above ground.

MJohnston

I know all this lads, but I stand by my point - you seriously don't think any government is going to go for the system that gives them the biggest "jobs created" figure for headlines? Also, I'd imagine driverless systems are quite expensive, in the short term, but maybe less in the long term. Irish politicians will still pick the option with the lower headline costs, because they're nearly all constantly looking to get reelected.

roadmaster

Grandeeod wrote: »

In the 1950s we went with the Dieselisation of the rail network. Against advice we opted to go with an English company. We ended up spending loads more money on fixing the locos.

In the 1980s we ploughed ahead with the M50. Despite obvious problems we continued building it into the 2000s. We then spent loads more money buying out a toll bridge cartel and upgrading the M50.

The luas red line was introduced in 2004 with shorter trams than the green line. The RPA rejected criticism. Not long after the trams on the red line were lengthened. More money after the event. Fortunately the platforms were originally built to facilitate the longer trams.

I could go on presenting examples involving PT and roads. Even the building of buses for CIE in the early 80s was filled full of political and semi state chicanery resulting in inferior vehicles and job losses in the private sector.. The trend is pretty clear and it hasn't changed all that much. Procrastinate, debate, revise, postpone, reinvent, pay more in the long run. That is the destination for MN and DU if ever they are completed.

It sounds like your saying we don't like being told what to do and we repeat are mistakes. It's not like we would vote for the same people over and over!

D14Rugby

Serious question. If you're extending the metro south of SSG why follow the green line? The green line south of SSG is about as out of the way way as you can get and works pretty well so why change it so drastically, and expensively, when you could have the metro north continue down that corridor on the south side that is pretty much public transport free. The tunneling would be expensive but surely it makes more sense to tunnel out that way and keep the roads relatively undisturbed than to rip up the green line, put down metro lines and then either disturb roads or leave that whole area unserved.

Sam Russell

D14Rugby wrote: »

Serious question. If you're extending the metro south of SSG why follow the green line? The green line south of SSG is about as out of the way way as you can get and works pretty well so why change it so drastically, and expensively, when you could have the metro north continue down that corridor on the south side that is pretty much public transport free. The tunneling would be expensive but surely it makes more sense to tunnel out that way and keep the roads relatively undisturbed than to rip up the green line, put down metro lines and then either disturb roads or leave that whole area unserved.

Serious answer.

The Green line south of Charlemont is already set for Metro, with a few level crossings to sort.

It would make sense to divert the trams at Charlemont somewhere else.

lawred2

Surely the green line is largely metro ready?