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

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

I suspect it will be able to support a higher frequency then Luas (say a train every 1.5 minutes versus max 3 minutes of Luas), so yes it should have a much higher throughput then Luas. However a tunnel is something which will likely still be used a hundred years from now (see London Underground), so making sure that stations are right up front will avoid lots of headaches later.

100% agree it should just be a case of removing some temporary walls

LeinsterDub

tom1ie wrote: »

Oh and what is the 20m matter station box going to be used for? They’d hardly be wasting 20m of tax payers money now would they..........

Nothing it certainly redundant now

CreativeSen

Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »

TII and NTA are meeting with elected representatives tomorrow evening to launch the 'MetroLink' project and answer any questions and outline the consultation process.

Do you have any questions you want me to ask on your behalf?

I saw the details that were leaked in the Irish Times. Other than that, I understand that:

• There will be 25 stations on a 26km route
• Underground platform length is to be 60m but 'extendible to 90m in future'
• Full grade separation to Sandyford.
• €20m Mater station box will not be used

Can you please ask in relation to the 20 million spent on the Mater Station Box, is it now being skipped because the alignment is moving from Drumcondra to Phibsborough or is there a different reason?

And thank you for coming on here and requesting feedback!

jd

The consultation actually starts tomorrow, details should be online mid afternoon

Idbatterim

when will the public, get to meet these "experts" face to face?

marno21

Keep an eye on www.metrolink.ie - it looks rearing to go

VeryOwl

Would echo the sentiments about the 60 metre stops. Incredibly short-sighted. What's their justification?

Thanks for coming on here.

yabadabado

VeryOwl wrote: »

Would echo the sentiments about the 60 metre stops. Incredibly short-sighted. What's their justification?

Thanks for coming on here.

Like majority of the projects here. Clueless.

dogsouljah

VeryOwl wrote: »

Would echo the sentiments about the 60 metre stops. Incredibly short-sighted. What's their justification?

Thanks for coming on here.

If they are proposing an automated system, with headways down to 90 seconds and proper high-floor metro rolling stock (higher capacity than the low floor tram-type body), then the platform length is not so much of an issue.

Copenhagen metro has a platform length of 47m and would have similar demand figures to what you would expect see in Dublin. In that scenario, 60m platforms are more than sufficient.

yabadabado

dogsouljah wrote: »

If they are proposing an automated system, with headways down to 90 seconds and proper high-floor metro rolling stock (higher capacity than the low floor tram-type body), then the platform length is not so much of an issue.

Copenhagen metro has a platform length of 47m and would have similar demand figures to what you would expect see in Dublin. In that scenario, 60m platforms are more than sufficient.

What about future proofing the Metro. Copenhagen metro planned about 30 years ago and I rather we looked at something that won't need any upgrades due to capacity in 10 or 15 years after completion.

dogsouljah

yabadabado wrote: »

What about future proofing the Metro. Copenhagen metro planned about 30 years ago and I rather we looked at something that won't need any upgrades due to capacity in 10 or 15 years after completion.

Using Copenhagen again as an example, the trains are about 39m long and can be extended to 51m. The alterations required are some additional platform screen doors but the platform length caters for this future capacity upgrade. Of course, the trains have no driver cabin on either end so passenger carrying space is fully optimised.

Other upgrade options for the future could be reconfiguring the metro train interior to increase standing room or increasing train frequency.

If it turns out to be a Luas in a tunnel like the original scheme then certainly, not allowing for 90m platforms would be a disaster. If it is a proper modern automated metro system, there are other tools to gain that capacity.

yabadabado

Iirc Copenhagen metro was supposed to be bigger, platforms and trains but both were reduced to cut costs.

I'd rather this was done right first time even if it costs more. Get it right from day one and we won't be reviewing it again in the short term unlike many previous transport projects in this country.

tom1ie

dogsouljah wrote: »

Using Copenhagen again as an example, the trains are about 39m long and can be extended to 51m. The alterations required are some additional platform screen doors but the platform length caters for this future capacity upgrade. Of course, the trains have no driver cabin on either end so passenger carrying space is fully optimised.

Other upgrade options for the future could be reconfiguring the metro train interior to increase standing room or increasing train frequency.

If it turns out to be a Luas in a tunnel like the original scheme then certainly, not allowing for 90m platforms would be a disaster. If it is a proper modern automated metro system, there are other tools to gain that capacity.

itll be interesting to see what the interior configuration of the metro will be.
Do we know who the supplier of the trains will be, or am i getting way ahead of myself here.........

dogsouljah

yabadabado wrote: »

Iirc Copenhagen metro was supposed to be bigger, platforms and trains but both were reduced to cut costs.

I'd rather this was done right first time even if it costs more. Get it right from day one and we won't be reviewing it again in the short term unlike many previous transport projects in this country.

With regards to Copenhagen, the system has been in operation for 16 years, and they have not yet reached a point where passenger demand cannot be satisfied by increasing frequencies or reconfiguring interiors for more standing space. They have an option to inject another 20% capacity into the network by extending the fleet to the final maximum length but the business case or public safety case just does not seem to be there almost 2 decades on.

I would agree that 47m long platforms (as per Copenhagen)are a little on the short side for a new system such as Metro link but I think 90m is on the other extreme. If a 50m high-floor, high frequency system can deliver a carrying capacity in excess of the original metro north project (which had 90m trains), I would prefer the construction programme, capital, and operational savings available from building smaller station boxes.

Anyway, really looking forward to seeing what detail we get tomorrow. Whatever the system announced, I also hope they get it right.

cgcsb

dogsouljah wrote: »

If they are proposing an automated system, with headways down to 90 seconds and proper high-floor metro rolling stock (higher capacity than the low floor tram-type body), then the platform length is not so much of an issue.

Copenhagen metro has a platform length of 47m and would have similar demand figures to what you would expect see in Dublin. In that scenario, 60m platforms are more than sufficient.

Copenhagen metro was built a loonnng time ago. By 2027(the earliest we can expect to see metro running) Dublin will be a lot bigger in population than Copenhagen. Our economic and population growth is streets ahead of Denmark. The route also is home to Dublin airport, ya know that airport that is going to become a massive global hub, nothing like Copenhagen in 1970.

cgcsb

60m platform decision is a disgrace. The current Green line is operating 55m trams, an extra 5m being introduced in 10 years time is a joke in a City like Dublin where explosive growth is a feature. Copenhagen isn't comparative in this case. You don't need a comparison, just look at Dublin 1990 and Dublin 2000, two different worlds.

Idbatterim

“Anyway, really looking forward to seeing what detail we get tomorrow. Whatever the system announced, I also hope they get it right.” I’m early thirties and I lost this level of naivety a long time ago!

LeinsterDub

cgcsb wrote: »

60m platform decision is a disgrace. The current Green line is operating 55m trams, an extra 5m being introduced in 10 years time is a joke in a City like Dublin where explosive growth is a feature. Copenhagen isn't comparative in this case. You don't need a comparison, just look at Dublin 1990 and Dublin 2000, two different worlds.

As has been pointed out the platform length isn't the be all and end all. We need to know the types of trams and the headway between them also.

Idbatterim

LeinsterDub wrote: »

As has been pointed out the platform length isn't the be all and end all. We need to know the types of trams and the headway between them also.

If the original figure if e80,000,000 is to be believed for platform shortening. We are talking about nothing. A total and utter irrelevance of a figure... they have 3.5,000,000,000 for their giveaway budget this year, please tell me how that sort of picker change on a system that will be running for decades, makes any sense ...

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

If the original figure if e80,000,000 is to be believed for platform shortening. We are talking about nothing. A total and utter irrelevance of a figure... they have 3.5,000,000,000 for their giveaway budget this year, please tell me how that sort of picker change on a system that will be running for decades, makes any sense ...

It doesn't. As I've said before hopefully extendable to 90 m means removing some fake walls in the future and the 60 trams deliver more than 12,000 journeys per hour per direction from the get go.


I'm not hopeful.

cgcsb

The option to extend to 90m platforms means they'll have to do the tunneling anyway and install retaining walls. So you'll have this 30m dead space in stations, which is just missing a platform, probably partitioned off on opening. How STUPID is that? for an extra few hundred quid per station they could just put in the extra 30m of platform. Partitioning off the extra 30m of dead space would cost nearly as much as just putting the platform in. Do they not have engineering consultants to tell them this?

Van.Bosch

Wonder is this launch still going ahead today, not the best timing. Any google search I’ve done for Dublin metro has just brought up stories about the fire in the metro hotel in Dublin!

bk

cgcsb wrote: »

The option to extend to 90m platforms means they'll have to do the tunneling anyway and install retaining walls. So you'll have this 30m dead space in stations, which is just missing a platform, probably partitioned off on opening.

Well that is what we hope. What I fear we will get is simply 60m station boxes, with no extra space and just a comment that it can be upgraded to 90m in future using mining, which would be horribly expensive and disruptive, you would probably have to close the whole line down for 6 months or more!

Idbatterim

cgcsb wrote: »

The option to extend to 90m platforms means they'll have to do the tunneling anyway and install retaining walls. So you'll have this 30m dead space in stations, which is just missing a platform, probably partitioned off on opening. How STUPID is that? for an extra few hundred quid per station they could just put in the extra 30m of platform. Partitioning off the extra 30m of dead space would cost nearly as much as just putting the platform in. Do they not have engineering consultants to tell them this?

absolutely. So the difference in cost is effectively some extra concrete for the platform. And they atrvseiousoy going to bank at this messing around, in a few years, from r the sake of some concrete now?! Although it would beggars belief they wouldn’t just do it from the start. So say the e80,000,000 figure given was to be believed, a large amount of it would go straight back to government, so they are going from 90m to 60m to “save” nothing? Lads will you be showing up at the public meetings?

bk

dogsouljah wrote: »

With regards to Copenhagen, the system has been in operation for 16 years, and they have not yet reached a point where passenger demand cannot be satisfied by increasing frequencies or reconfiguring interiors for more standing space. They have an option to inject another 20% capacity into the network by extending the fleet to the final maximum length but the business case or public safety case just does not seem to be there almost 2 decades on.

Well first of all 16 years is nothing for big infrastructure. The first London Underground tunnel was built 150 years ago and is still in use today.

60m might be fine for today. But 20 years from now? 50 years?

I get and agree with what you are saying in terms of the design of the trains, if they are high floor and wider they will be able to take a lot more people then Luas narrow low floor design.

However if you open at a frequency of 90 seconds, that doesn't leave any room for increased frequency in the future and messing around with interior space won't do much down the line.

I do think if we got wider, high floor 60 meters trains operating at a peak 90 second frequency, that it would be fine for today, it would be roughly 2 to 3 times the capacity of a Luas line. However I'm not sure it would still be enough 20 years from now.

Think about at least 40,000 homes added to Swords. Airport gets second runway, third terminal and has likely doubled passenger numbers. Large numbers transferring on from newly electrified train routes at Whitworth Road.

It all sounds very tight to me for long term expansion.

Again, the important question is what do they mean by extendable to 90m.

If it means:
90m station boxes today, but just 60m platform and trains today, but easily upgradeable to 90m (knock a wall, add a third carriage to the train), then that would likely be fine.

But if it means they will need to mine out an extra 30m in future, it would be a disaster in terms of long term planning.

cgcsb

Idbatterim wrote: »

absolutely. So the difference in cost is effectively some extra concrete for the platform. And they atrvseiousoy going to bank at this messing around, in a few years, from r the sake of some concrete now?! Although it would beggars belief they wouldn’t just do it from the start. So say the e80,000,000 figure given was to be believed, a large amount of it would go straight back to government, so they are going from 90m to 60m to “save” nothing? Lads will you be showing up at the public meetings?

2 platform spaces, 30m long per station when you already have your equipment and your workers on site vs partitioning off a 30m dead space at the end of a platform. The cost difference would be nothing. The partition wall would probably have to be concrete anyway, a timber partition would only do for as a very short term thing. Depending on the build up and the depth of the platform, the partition wall may cost more than just putting in the extra platform.

Another concern is that they have drastically miscalaculated this €80mil saving. 16 stations, 2 platforms each, 30m sections: 16*2*30=960m run of platform. At 80 million euro that's 83 thousand euro per metre run of platform. The only way that could have been calculated is if the ruler of Dubai is building it and intends on the 30m section on being made entirely of solid gold.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

2 platform spaces, 30m long per station when you already have your equipment and your workers on site vs partitioning off a 30m dead space at the end of a platform. The cost difference would be nothing. The partition wall would probably have to be concrete anyway, a timber partition would only do for as a very short term thing. Depending on the build up and the depth of the platform, the partition wall may cost more than just putting in the extra platform.

Another concern is that they have drastically miscalaculated this €80mil saving. 16 stations, 2 platforms each, 30m sections: 16*2*30=960m run of platform. At 80 million euro that's 83 thousand euro per metre run of platform. The only way that could have been calculated is if the ruler of Dubai is building it and intends on the 30m section on being made entirely of solid gold.

You're forgetting that the cost of the platform itself isn't the only saving you make if the platforms are shorter.

cgcsb

MJohnston wrote: »

You're forgetting that the cost of the platform itself isn't the only saving you make if the platforms are shorter.

What other 'savings' are there. Keeping in mind I haven't even factored in getting the lads and the plant to mix and pour concrete back down there to break out the concrete partition wall, remove the debris and pour and finish a new platform in a live station, and the disruption that will bring.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

What other 'savings' are there. Keeping in mind I haven't even factored in getting the lads and the plant to mix and pour concrete back down there to break out the concrete partition wall, remove the debris and pour and finish a new platform in a live station, and the disruption that will bring.

Ah. You're making the classic internet mistake of assuming that I'm in favour of the thing that I'm pointing out potential benefits of. I'm definitely not, I think 90m needs to happen.

As for what other savings there are - well there are minor things, such as less fitout for stations with shorter platforms, but there are other more major things like the fact that the trains purchased will be 30m shorter.

Sierra Oscar

NTA are launching this project today at 2pm, they'll outline specific details on the proposed route.