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

Shedite27

cgcsb wrote: »

He's not really all that employable as an architect given his well documented laziness. Expect to see him a lot branching out into anything he can make a few quid from. /rant.

Have you tried to hire him lately? He's definitely not short of business!

bk

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where do Scoil Mobhí and Scoil Catríona play their games currently? How will access to these schools be impacted by a heavy construction siute for 6 (and the rest) years?

There is a very large playing field next to Scoil Catriona and behind Scoil Mobhi and the Na Fianna club house, which is owned by Scoil Catriona. They also have two basketball courts there. These won't be impacted by the works. Na Fianna also makes use of the Scoil Catriona playing pitch and I would assume could continue to do so during the works.

sdanseo wrote: »

CPO the "urban farm" mentioned previously instead and relocate Na Fianna permanently to part of that site. There's enough spare room to solve the entire city's housing problems and practically create a new suburb. From highliting what appears to be its boundaries in Google Earth it totals out around 20 hectares.

It is owned by DCU. I think they plan on extending the university campus into that area. The original Metro was supposed to go there, so it would be the southern entrance to the expanded university.

I could certainly see DCU allowing Na Fianna use their playing fields as they already do at St Pats. But why would they hand over their land to Na Fianna! Since when is a GAA club more important then a university!

Carawaystick wrote: »

I still think Albert College Park is the best location for a stop, eliminating the need for the Collins Avenue one. A dedicated (even moving) walkway to the junction of Collins Ave. would meet nicely with the potential high frequency bus services. In saving a station, that saves €100m or more which would pay for the land a few times over. Everyone wins.

Errr.. Except for the now three sporting teams that lose playing grounds rather then just one and for the public who loose access to an important public recreational facility. I suspect that locals would be much more annoyed and likely to object to losing a public park.

bk

lucernarian wrote: »

Are there any significant savings to be found in the mooted scheme vs what Metro North was? The most detailed info on Metro North placed the value at 2.7 billion during the recession. I can't see where they get the 3 billion number from, when there's far more tunnelling and the upgrading of the green line luas involved too.

Having looked at the detailed plans for the original Metro North and the mooted new plans, you can clearly see the the stations for MN where way larger and more complicated. Even the simplest stations had multiple entrances at every corner, which required extra tunnelling, never mind the very cool, but monster sized stations under O'Connell Bridge and Stephens Green.

By comparison, all the Metrolink stations look like far simpler affairs. Just simple station boxes, with a single entrance directly above them.

Only Whitworth Road and Tara look a bit different, due to their connection with Irish Rail. But even then, they are still simple station boxes and it is only the above ground connection with rail that is a bit extra, so shouldn't be too costly.

So I'd suspect there are big savings from all these simpler stations.

Also it looks like they are trying to carefully run the Metro under roads, I could be wrong about this, but I suspect this allows them to go shallower then the MN plans would have and that likely saves cost.

bk

abitofacomedian wrote: »

My advise to anyone who who comes on here to use a phrase like "lack of joined up thinking" is to go to metrolink.ie and read the comprehensive documentation, go to a public consultation and make representation and then preach the benefits along with the weaknesses.

This, I'm very excited by this scheme, it isn't perfect, it is a pity that Na Fianna will be temporarily effected and I'd way prefer HFV over LFV, but I'm still very happy to finally see it happen.

Finally Dublin gets some high quality public transport. Finally we get our first underground and hopefully it will be so successful that it will just be the first of many more to come.

Sam Russell

Is there a safety issue with low floor vehicles in that it is easy for passengers to cross the rails rather than use the footbridge? A high floor makes the platform much higher and so more of an obstruction for people trying to cross.

As to modifying the existing platforms on the Green line, the first Metro trains will be 60 m long, while the existing trams are also about 60 m long. Now the platform design length is 90 m long, so there is 30 m of new platform to add, or maybe add 60 m of high floor platform and convert to old platform after the service starts, or leave the existing platforms for occasional use by trams and build new 90 m platforms onto the end of them. They will have plenty of time to decide these details once the TBM is munching through the earth.

Are the Metro trains to be 4 coaches made up of two car sets of 30 m each, to allow easy extension from 60 m to 90 m?

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is there a safety issue with low floor vehicles in that it is easy for passengers to cross the rails rather than use the footbridge? A high floor makes the platform much higher and so more of an obstruction for people trying to cross.

Yes, it is definitely a concern. The HFV plan requires full segregation, which means Platform Screen Doors and pedestrian overpass between the platforms.

The LFV options don't have the PSD and they expect people to continue to cross at grade as they do now.

I'd say it is definitely more dangerous and definitely a lower quality solution.

I think I'll be strongly making submissions that we go for the HFV option and I'd suggest others might do the same if they feel the same.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

I think we all get it, you don't think it'll happen!

No I don't think it will happen, but that was not the context of my reply to Stephen. I was answering his question re the Metro tie in with the Green line. I am merely pointing out that when the Green Line was planned on the basis of eventually upgrading it to a Metro, no real foresight or indeed planning was considered apart from the distance between the running lines. Its my contention that it was a poor and rushed approach to settle a political argument.

As for my negativity re metrolink, I don't need to articulate my reasons any further, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong and if I am circa 2021, I'd be the first to hold my hands up.

Neworder79

bk wrote: »

By comparison, all the Metrolink stations look like far simpler affairs. Just simple station boxes, with a single entrance directly above them.

Understand the drive to manage cost/disruption, done is better than perfect! But isn't there a strong case to build additional entrances at some of the key city center stations. I guess they are major disruption cut and cover projects in themselves, can they be tunneled from the station boxes? Forgive my ignorance just interested, may have lived too long in London!

Entrances/Exits from approaching streets really smooth the commuter experience, aid mode interchange with bus and Luas stops, and reduce journey times and congestion.

SG East – Grafton St, Dawson (Luas / Bus)
SG East – Towards Leeson St, Merrion Row
Tara St – Pearse, Townsend, Trinity, CollegeGreen Plaza (Luas / Bus)
Tara St – North Quays, IFSC

bk

Neworder79 wrote: »

Understand the drive to manage cost/disruption, done is better than perfect! But isn't there a strong case to build additional entrances at some of the key city center stations (I guess they are major disruption cut and cover projects in themselves)?

Entrances/Exits from approaching streets really smooth the commuter experience, aid mode interchange with bus and Luas stops, and reduce journey times and congestion.

SG East closer to Grafton Dawson/Luas
Tara St to Pearse / Townsend Trinity Plaza Luas / Buses

Yes, I think extra entrances would greatly enhance the pedestrian access and interchange, no doubt about it at all. But as you say they would be major disruption/cost in themselves, but perhaps arguably worth it to get the best value out of an expensive Metro.

Another one that particularly stands out is the O'Connell St stop that will require people to cross from both sides of O'Connell St, across a busy bus corridor.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

No I don't think it will happen, but that was not the context of my reply to Stephen. I was answering his question re the Metro tie in with the Green line. I am merely pointing out that when the Green Line was planned on the basis of eventually upgrading it to a Metro, no real foresight or indeed planning was considered apart from the distance between the running lines. Its my contention that it was a poor and rushed approach to settle a political argument.

As for my negativity re metrolink, I don't need to articulate my reasons any further, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong and if I am circa 2021, I'd be the first to hold my hands up.

Just a question - are you planning on making a positive submission (officially I mean) during the Public Consultation?

plodder

bk wrote: »

Yes, I think extra entrances would greatly enhance the pedestrian access and interchange, no doubt about it at all. But as you say they would be major disruption/cost in themselves, but perhaps arguably worth it to get the best value out of an expensive Metro.

Another one that particularly stands out is the O'Connell St stop that will require people to cross from both sides of O'Connell St, across a busy bus corridor.

Maybe that could be incorporated into the standard station box design, with openings allowed for in the concrete shell for future pedestrian tunnels going in different directions. The disruption created by cut and cover work could then be tackled locally, case by case, in the future.

bk

plodder wrote: »

Maybe that could be incorporated into the standard station box design, with openings allowed for in the concrete shell for future pedestrian tunnels going in different directions. The disruption created by cut and cover work could then be tackled locally, case by case, in the future.

Brilliant idea, I agree completely.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

Yes, it is definitely a concern. The HFV plan requires full segregation, which means Platform Screen Doors and pedestrian overpass between the platforms.

The LFV options don't have the PSD and they expect people to continue to cross at grade as they do now.

I'd say it is definitely more dangerous and definitely a lower quality solution.

I think I'll be strongly making submissions that we go for the HFV option and I'd suggest others might do the same if they feel the same.

I think it’ll be an absolute disaster if we don’t go hfv with psg. There is no way we can have driverless high speed high frequency metros rolling into stations, and commuters crossing the rails to get to the opposite platform.
Even if there are drivers (which no doubt will be a requirement if we don’t put in psg’s) there is still a big safety hazard there.

Incidentally what make of metro will/can they go with and what speeds can be reached?

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

Incidentally what make of metro will/can they go with and what speeds can be reached?

I think they should look at the London Docklands Light Railway. I think it works well, has been a great success and would be a good example to follow. Other Metros would be worth looking at as to how they are fitted out.

Will they use central island platforms for the underground section? [This assumes they are going with twin tunnels].

loyatemu

plodder wrote: »

Maybe that could be incorporated into the standard station box design, with openings allowed for in the concrete shell for future pedestrian tunnels going in different directions. The disruption created by cut and cover work could then be tackled locally, case by case, in the future.

if they don't put the extra entrances in during construction of the station, they'll never happen.

MJohnston

Thinking about ways they can mitigate the disruption to the Luas Green Line if they have to raise the platforms for higher-floor Metro train - are there stated minimum width tolerances for Luas platforms?

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

if they don't put the extra entrances in during construction of the station, they'll never happen.

Well they could leave provision for them which would make future inclusion easier. They have added an extra entrance at Tara St, and added escalators at Pearse. [And closed an exit in Connolly for the Dart area].

Zebra3

plodder wrote: »

Maybe that could be incorporated into the standard station box design, with openings allowed for in the concrete shell for future pedestrian tunnels going in different directions. The disruption created by cut and cover work could then be tackled locally, case by case, in the future.

Do it first time, do it right.

MJohnston

Zebra3 wrote: »

Do it first time, do it right.

Disagree - do it now, do it in a way that means it will actually get done, do it in a way that allows for simple future expansion.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

Just a question - are you planning on making a positive submission (officially I mean) during the Public Consultation?

yes as I have done in relation to DU and MN.

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

I think it’ll be an absolute disaster if we don’t go hfv with psg. There is no way we can have driverless high speed high frequency metros rolling into stations, and commuters crossing the rails to get to the opposite platform.
Even if there are drivers (which no doubt will be a requirement if we don’t put in psg’s) there is still a big safety hazard there.

Yes, this is why I think the driver operated option can only reach 30 Trains per hour per direction, while the driverless can reach 40 TPHPD.

People crossing the tracks, etc. would mean drivers have to be more cautious and thus less frequency. Driverless would mean full segregation and thus higher frequency.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they should look at the London Docklands Light Railway. I think it works well, has been a great success and would be a good example to follow. Other Metros would be worth looking at as to how they are fitted out.

Yes, I think they used Copenhagens HFV driverless Metro as the model for the 60m HFV driveless option here. It looks very impressive and is similar to DLR.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will they use central island platforms for the underground section? [This assumes they are going with twin tunnels].

They seem to have not completely finalised the plans yet, but yes, the plans seem to be leading heavily towards twin tunnel and central island platforms, with the entrance being directly above.

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well they could leave provision for them which would make future inclusion easier. They have added an extra entrance at Tara St, and added escalators at Pearse. [And closed an exit in Connolly for the Dart area].

those additions were easy above ground construction. Adding underground walkways in the City Centre will be disruptive and expensive - if they don't do it during the disruption that's already being caused by the Metro construction, they certainly won't come back and dig up the streets again later.

Idbatterim

all they care about is cost. We all know what the best option is, driverless, HFV, 60m initially, with 90m platforms. How can we make a call or how can they, without knowing the cost implications?!

Also I think this thing has the capacity to take masses of traffic off the roads, if they are serious about wanting to reduce congestion, I would start introducing multi point tolling along M1, M50 etc... enough to get you out of the car if you are just being lazy and dont want to switch to metro north etc, but not enough to be awful if you really dont want to switch or it is impractical. If they hook this up to the northern line. Feeder buses etc. Link cherrywood to Bray. The numbers on the line will be huge. Personally I think low floor and driver based would be a joke, given the spend on this project. Its not some 400-500 million job. Its a serious figure and we should be getting a serious solution, after decades...

bk

Idbatterim wrote: »

all they care about is cost. We all know what the best option is, driverless, HFV, 60m initially, with 90m platforms. How can we make a call or how can they, without knowing the cost implications?!

The analysis actually costs it out, at least the Green line section upgrade cost:

I'm only remembering now but it is roughly:

- 60m LFV driver-operated 30TPHPD: 50 million
- 90m LFV driver-operated 30TPHPD: 90 million
- 60m HFV driverless 40TPHPD: 130 million

They don't mention, other costs, in terms of the tunnel, etc. However I don't think there would be much difference as they are new build, just a little extra concrete for a higher platform.

The extra cost of the driverless is basically the need for full segregation. Platform screen doors and pedestrian walkways/lifts between the platforms.

I'd say an extra 40m is nothing in the overall cost of a project like this and would be well worth it for the greater safety, higher frequency and higher capacity.

Idbatterim

bk in terms of those figures above. A lot of that extra spend would go back to government coffers as we all know. If you are going to spend a fortune, you want major results. What in gods name is the point of spending a fortune on what costs the major money, i.e. tunneling, to constrict ridership with the pittance that is the extra station and and longer rolling stock "costs"?

In terms of the cost analysis. Surely the driverless hfv offers far better value for money than the alternatives? Its one thing going with 60m initially, but they have to be driver less and high floor and 90m platforms in my opinion....

Also can they not also build their own massive car park for airport parking and also a park and ride around ballymun?

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

The analysis actually costs it out, at least the Green line section upgrade cost:

I'm only remembering now but it is roughly:

- 60m LFV driver-operated 30TPHPD: 50 million
- 90m LFV driver-operated 30TPHPD: 90 million
- 60m HFV driverless 40TPHPD: 130 million

They don't mention, other costs, in terms of the tunnel, etc. However I don't think there would be much difference as they are new build, just a little extra concrete for a higher platform.

The extra cost of the driverless is basically the need for full segregation. Platform screen doors and pedestrian walkways/lifts between the platforms.

I'd say an extra 40m is nothing in the overall cost of a project like this and would be well worth it for the greater safety, higher frequency and higher capacity.

Yeah but I worry it’s a 40 million euro saving, that the majority of the public won’t understand means the difference between an excellent metro and a mediocre metro.
I wonder could a group like platform 11 be set up to put pressure on politicians/planners to make sure they make the right choices. There’ll be plenty of pressure for them to cut costs and I’d say lfv vs hfv +psg will be the first victim :mad:

murphaph

The Estuary and proposed proposed Dartistown P&Rs would need to be so priced to prevent them being used as a cheap alternative to long term airport parking. That'll be interesting to see how that's handled.

Idbatterim

tom1ie wrote: »

Yeah but I worry it’s a 40 million euro saving, that the majority of the public won’t understand means the difference between an excellent metro and a mediocre metro.
I wonder could a group like platform 11 be set up to put pressure on politicians/planners to make sure they make the right choices. There’ll be plenty of pressure for them to cut costs and I’d say lfv vs hfv +psg will be the first victim :mad:

a nation of idiots. They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If they are genuinely serious about this. It isnt Joe public making the decision. This isnt like going with the cheap option and saving a billion out of 3. Franky fair enough have public consultations, it has some value. But there are many decisions, which people in the know and with experties should be making. Not the like of some witch hunt in the media lead by that muppet colm mccarthy etc...

bk

Idbatterim wrote: »

In terms of the cost analysis. Surely the driverless hfv offers far better value for money than the alternatives? Its one thing going with 60m initially, but they have to be driver less and high floor and 90m platforms in my opinion....

Absolutely, that analysis doesn't include a number of other costs and economic considerations:

- Significant wage cost savings
- Costs and delays due to accidents/suicides along the line
- Savings due to reduced chances of strikes
- 24/7 operation is more economically possible (Copenhagen runs 24/7)
- Can be upgraded to an even higher capacity then 90m LFV
- Doesn't need to be upgraded as soon as 60m LFV would be (which going by Luas I'd expect to be shortly after it opens!).

I think if you were to include all those in the costing, you would quickly wipe out that extra €40m

Idbatterim wrote: »

Also can they not also build their own massive car park for airport parking and also a park and ride around ballymun?

Good point. One of the reasons we only have limited P+R's at the moment, is because our Luas lines, etc. are already at capacity, so no point in adding more P+R. The more capacity your service has, the more P+R you can build and attract people onto.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

The analysis actually costs it out, at least the Green line section upgrade cost:

I'm only remembering now but it is roughly:

- 60m LFV driver-operated 30TPHPD: 50 million
- 90m LFV driver-operated 30TPHPD: 90 million
- 60m HFV driverless 40TPHPD: 130 million

They don't mention, other costs, in terms of the tunnel, etc. However I don't think there would be much difference as they are new build, just a little extra concrete for a higher platform.

The extra cost of the driverless is basically the need for full segregation. Platform screen doors and pedestrian walkways/lifts between the platforms.

I'd say an extra 40m is nothing in the overall cost of a project like this and would be well worth it for the greater safety, higher frequency and higher capacity.

Looking at those figures, there are about 50 trains to provide that level of service. It takes about 60 mins to get from one end of the line to the other, so each hour there are 100 hours of driver time. Say they operate driver trains for 18 hours a day 365 days a year. Assume drivers get an average of €30 per driver hour (I think it is nearly twice that) that gives a figure of €19.7 million. So two years of driverless trains pays the extra cost, but one year if the drivers get €60 per driver hour.*

*I am assuming that 'driver hour' averages the total drivers pay divided by actual driver time at the controls. The time taken to instruct drivers need to be considered also, which is not trivial.