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

Idbatterim

isnt it a bit hard for us to make an informed decision, without having any figures?!

driverless and the platforms being 90m, which will cost virtually nothing extra, would be priority for me...

wakka12

MJohnston wrote: »

Confirmation of the Green Line tie-in being south of Charlemont, north of Ranelagh:

There is a plan to build a very large office block on that exact space..whats going on??

loyatemu

wakka12 wrote: »

There is a plan to build a very large office block on that exact space..whats going on??

that block was given permission with provision made for the Metro underneath it. The developers consulted with TII.

Khuitlio

wakka12 wrote: »

There is a plan to build a very large office block on that exact space..whats going on??

They had to modify the plans to allow a tie in.

Can be seen in here:

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-2/metrolink-2-charlemont-drawing-pack.pdf

bk

Here are the options, including Luas at 55m and my option x that they didn't include:

Luas: 55m LFV - Driver Controlled - 20 TPHPD: 7,380 PPDPH

Scenario 1: 60m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 12,390 PPDPH
Scenario 2: 60m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 18,000 PPDPH
Scenario 3: 90m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 22,320 PPDPH
Scenario x: 90m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 27,000 PPDPH

I have to say, it feels like they have already decided on option 1 and trying to hood wink people on the 90m being a future upgrade and ignoring the obviously much superior automated HFV option like Copenhagen has.

Scenario 1 is less then twice the capacity of Luas, while option x would be 4 times the possible max capacity of Luas for only a little extra money.

Heartbreak Hank

bk wrote: »

It seems driver operated LFV means you are limited to a frequency of every two minutes. While a HFV driverless can go to a frequency of every 90 seconds. So a 90m HFV automated would give you significantly more capacity then a 90m LFV driver train.

Is driverless LFV not possible? From a brief read of the Green Line upgrade document it seems like raising the platforms will be a red mark against the HFVs.

Idbatterim

Im wondering about driverless, are their figures on line, for the intital extra upfront cost (which I am assuming there is v the reduced driver cost? Any employment related taxes cant really be claimed as savings. So they say at peak, it can have 30 trams, per direction, per hour. Lets go with 20 per trains per hour on average, over an 18 hour day (even that is probably conservative) and say the cost for the driver is E20 per hour (not including any employment related taxes), that would = €5,241,600

I take it that is a crude calculation, but you have to factor in the regular as clockwork strikes every few years and the absolute hold drivers would have on a line as crucial as this! Then when they strike, the economic fall out. A lot of it is guess work, but those costs, (the strike costs) have to be born into the equation...

bk

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

Is driverless LFV not possible? From a brief read of the Green Line upgrade document it seems like raising the platforms will be a red mark against the HFVs.

Good question, I'm not sure, I didn't see any mention of it, but I suspect it might be due to the lack of space that would be required for extra gear.

Yes, raising platforms on the Green Line would be complicated. But it would be a massive pity to cripple the capacity of the entire Metro line because of a bit of extra trouble along the Green line.

Idbatterim

bk wrote: »

Here are the options, including Luas at 55m and my option x that they didn't include:

Luas: 55m LFV - Driver Controlled - 20 TPHPD: 7,380 PPDPH

Scenario 1: 60m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 12,390 PPDPH
Scenario 2: 60m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 18,000 PPDPH
Scenario 3: 90m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 22,320 PPDPH
Scenario x: 90m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 27,000 PPDPH

I have to say, it feels like they have already decided on option 1 and trying to hood wink people on the 90m being a future upgrade and ignoring the obviously much superior automated HFV option like Copenhagen has.

Scenario 1 is less then twice the capacity of Luas, while option x would be 4 times the possible max capacity of Luas for only a little extra money.

I just came to say exactly this. The fortune is borring that amount of tunnel and a line that long. The station stuff is pocket change in the scheme of things. I would be very happy with 60m driverless (initially) with 90m platforms...

Lord Glentoran

Equium wrote: »

I feel that it is important to note that there are many excellent engineers, architects and planners performing great work behind the scenes within agencies such as the NTA and TII. A lot of them are just as frustrated as the general public that, due mostly to political decisions beyond their control, their ideas, plans and designs have been discarded and very little infrastructure actually built.

Indeed, I agree. However, let's not mistake this for a definite timetable that all this will happen seamlessly in nine years time, which will be fifty years since the suggestion of a line to Ballymun and the Airport was first mooted in the DRRTS proposals. Official Ireland's tardiness in approving any rail project and the inevitable change in Government between now and 2027 will ensure plenty of room for interference.

Idbatterim

bk wrote: »

Good question, I'm not sure, I didn't see any mention of it, but I suspect it might be due to the lack of space that would be required for extra gear.

Yes, raising platforms on the Green Line would be complicated. But it would be a massive pity to cripple the capacity of the entire Metro line because of a bit of extra trouble along the Green line.

just google Driverless Low floor ...

http://www.crrcgc.cc/en/g7389/s13996/t287405.aspx

marno21

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Indeed, I agree. However, let's not mistake this for a definite timetable that all this will happen seamlessly in nine years time, which will be fifty years since the suggestion of a line to Ballymun and the Airport was first mooted in the DRRTS proposals. Official Ireland's tardiness in approving any rail project and the inevitable change in Government between now and 2027 will ensure plenty of room for interference.

Can we save this please for a day on which we receive bad news?

The scheme is to start in 2021, not 2027. That's only 3 years away. There seems to be a lot of marketing around the scheme which will hopefully publicise it to the point where cancelling it becomes a major political issue for all involved.

There is also the matter that there are no public transport projects planned for Dublin in the short or medium term, and if none go ahead it'll be a political issue as Dublin's congestion issues don't need explaining on here.

Today is not the day for cynicism, the day of a deferral announcement is. We are all familiar with what happened Metro North, and I think what we got today more than makes up for it.

Idbatterim

Scenario 1: 60m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 12,390 PPDPH
Scenario 2: 60m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 18,000 PPDPH
Scenario 3: 90m LFV - Driver Controlled - 30 TPHPD: 22,320 PPDPH
Scenario x: 90m HFV - Driverless Control - 40 TPHPD: 27,000 PPDPH

on this, can the driverless system operate more trams per hour than a driver based one?

bk

Idbatterim wrote: »

just google Driverless Low floor ...

http://www.crrcgc.cc/en/g7389/s13996/t287405.aspx

Yes, thanks, but I wonder if the issue is more space for motors, etc. As in, in order to hit the higher frequency of 40 TPHPD, you need two things:

- Driverless
- More powerful motors for high acceleration/deceleration speed.

It is the second bit that probably needs more space offered by HFV.

yabadabado

Without doubt it should be a automated system. It makes way more sense.
Be great to not have to fear the regular strikes that will inevitably take place.

Stephen15

Where would low floor trams be acquired from? The Citadis trams would not be suitable for metro. I think the NTA may be going for the 60m lfvs because 90m lfvs do not exist yet. For the metro to thrive it needs to be high floor in order to maximise it's capacity in order to allow a bench style seating arrangement.

Idbatterim

yabadabado wrote: »

Without doubt it should be a automated system. It makes way more sense.
Be great to not have to fear the regular strikes that will inevitably take place.

I agree, the fact that a system, that wont see light of day, wont be introduced until 2027 (at least) in IRELAND (and this is key), it will beggar belief if it isnt automated and it will be a proper step and parting shot in the right direction...

Put it another way, I dont think we should be turning a silk purse, into a sow's ear! Over 1-2% of the total project budget, again, a lot of which will go back to government coffers...

bk

At Whitworth Road, it looks like Des Kelly, the houses next to it and the Brian Boru pub will all have to go, with I assume major disruption to both rail lines there.

matrim

bk wrote: »

At Whitworth Road, it looks like Des Kelly, the houses next to it and the Brian Boru pub will all have to go, with I assume major disruption to both rail lines there.

Wouldn't there only be a smaller area needed above ground for access with most of the above ground staying as is.

marno21

matrim wrote: »

Wouldn't there only be a smaller area needed above ground for access with most of the above ground staying as is.

There is a plan to build a major surface heavy rail interchange station there.

bk

matrim wrote: »

Wouldn't there only be a smaller area needed above ground for access with most of the above ground staying as is.

No, the normal (cheap) way to build stations is with a full station box the length of the station. You basically just dig straight down from above.

Though in this case they might mine it out due to the tracks above.

marno21 wrote: »

There is a plan to build a major surface heavy rail interchange station there.

Yes, this is indicated in the outline of the work site. Looks like the rail station will go at the expected place out back behind Des Kelly between the two rails tracks.

bk

Measuring the indicated size of a couple of the major station boxes, it looks like they are 120 meters to 130 meters. Which sound good, sounds like they could be expanded to 90 meters in future.

Also the preferred option seems to be for dual bore tunnels with station platform in the middle between the two. Though they are also considering side by side in a single bore.

BTW looks like a bit of CPO'ing of houses around the tie-in will also be required. And quiet a bit of land taken behind Tara, though I assume they can come to an agreement with a developer for building offices over it after the work is complete.

lawred2

map seems to state only one park and ride at the Northernmost end

sameoldname

From looking at the Green Line PDF it seems that if the trains are the low-floor with driver option (and it looks like they are trying to push that as their preferred solution) that pedestrians will still be permitted to cross the tracks to get to their desired platform. In fact, they'll have no other option as they aren't looking to provide any elevator/bridge type crossing you'd get at a heavy rail station.

Can't say I like that idea at all. The drivers will have to crawl in and out of the stations to avoid the inevitable idiots with a death-wish crossing in-front of a moving train.

I assume that aside from the extra cost of upgrading the station platforms to the high-floor option the other massive drawback would presumably be that they'd have to close the Green Line while they rebuild the stations?

Sierra Oscar

Na Fianna GAA Club are really digging in over the plan to use their grounds for construction. Apparently they were only informed of the need to use their grounds last week.

Important communication for all CLG Na Fianna members regarding today’s Metrolink announcement

To be expected I suppose, they'll be looking for a big payout.

marno21

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Na Fianna GAA Club are really digging in over the plan to use their grounds for construction. Apparently they were only informed of the need to use their grounds last week.

Important communication for all CLG Na Fianna members regarding today’s Metrolink announcement

To be expected I suppose, they'll be looking for a big payout.

From their club perspective, this is a massive disruption and it would be negligent on the club officers not to start a large fight immediately.

From an outside perspective, it's one of the unavoidable realities of the project. Such a project cannot be implemented without significant disruption, and the benefits post opening will be massive for everyone in the area

bk

So, the detailed station plans are here (note big PDF):

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-1/metrolink-concept-engineering-drawings-book.pdf

They confirm that the station platforms are 90m and that the station boxes themselves are quiet a bit more then that.

Whitworth Road and Tara St look particularly impressive. Here is a cross section of Whitworth Road with substantial Irish Rail station included:

ciaran75

If Connolly is already at capacity, how will it take extra trains once Maynooth and Kildare lines have been upgraded to DART

marno21

Anne Graham NTA CEO will be on Today FM after 5 in relation to Metrolink

Idbatterim

would they not have Colm Mccarthy on calling it a white elephant? Like he no doubt claimed the Luas would be, the one that people cant even board at peak times?