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

marno21

murphaph wrote: »

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.

I have absolutely no doubt that the DAA will make absolutely sure that the P&Rs will have no effect on car park revenue.

It'll be interesting to see how much you could widen the scope of that. Would the Carrickmines P&R be an alternative to airport parking? I can see a lot of people switching to mainline rail and DART services to access the airport via the 2 mainline rail interchanges

Idbatterim

- Savings due to reduced chances of strikes

can you imagine, the importance of this line, the usual suspects baying for bloody and being able to shut it down every few years and the power they think they would wield? Its been delayed this long, that if it becomes driverless, that alone will "nearly" have been worth the wait!

My assumption is that this new line, Sandyford to north of swords. Will carry more than the existing Luas lines and entire irish rail network in a day... would that be about right?

- 24/7 operation is more economically possible (Copenhagen runs 24/7)

the route should be 24 hour operation... Having this huge capacity line running down the spine of the city, would be fantastic...

Zebra3

Sam Russell wrote: »

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.

Add in holiday pay, sick pay, pension contributions, healthcare, etc and you’d be adding a fair bit on.

Sam Russell

Zebra3 wrote: »

Add in holiday pay, sick pay, pension contributions, healthcare, etc and you’d be adding a fair bit on.

I have.

Just take full driver payroll and divide by number of hours at the controls = average driver cost per hour or 'driver hour'.

If it is over €60 then it is paid for in the first year, and therefor a no-brainer.

Idbatterim

lads could these figures be gotten together and then "shared" with whomever, the media etc, to try and increase pressure on this no brainer "consulation"

Zebra3

If this was being planned for outside Dublin there’d be a pressure group already dominating the media.

Idbatterim

Zebra3 wrote: »

If this was being planned for outside Dublin there’d be a pressure group already dominating the media.

in terms of supporting it, I take it you mean?

yabadabado

murphaph wrote: »

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.

I suppose you could make the PnR cost prohibitive for anything over 24hrs to prevent them becoming car parks for the airport.Isn't the max 24hr tariff at Luas PnR €5 ?

I sure DAA will want something in place so it doesn't lose revenue.Those PnR would still be very handy for the airport as it saves the hassle of driving further in towards the airport and the station will be a better set up than airport and bus.

Idbatterim

lads, surely building it under capacity or not allowing it to take the max number, is in a way a cost or lost opportunity v the "build it as cheap as possible "argument...

Surely the higher the partronage, the better value for money and less (if any) subsidy, it requires?

marno21

Mixed response to Metrolink plans on southside: http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/southside/articles/2018/03/28/4153863-mixed-response-to-southside-metrolink-plan/

Fingallians GAA unhappy with Metro plans: http://www.dublinpeople.com/news/southside/articles/2018/03/28/4153863-mixed-response-to-southside-metrolink-plan/

Glasnevin school concerned with Metrolink route: http://www.98fm.com/Glasnevin-School-Very-Concerned-About-Metro-Link-Route

Na Fianna ask members not to get involved in political campaigns related to Metrolink: http://www.thejournal.ie/na-fianna-gaa-metrolink-3926753-Mar2018/

MJohnston

Idbatterim wrote: »

lads, surely building it under capacity or not allowing it to take the max number, is in a way a cost or lost opportunity v the "build it as cheap as possible "argument...

Surely the higher the partronage, the better value for money and less (if any) subsidy, it requires?

Yes but my argument isn't actually about value, it's about the most pragmatic approach that actually gets the thing built. What that comes down to is a low enough initial figure of cost that can gain enough political support to succeed. I'm well aware there are parts of Metro that would be better value in the long run to do upfront, but I also think that some of those things will need to be sacrificed in order for the project to happen. I don't like it, but I'd rather a compromised Metro with expansion possibilities than no Metro, if the choice comes down to that.

Idbatterim

MJohnston wrote: »

Yes but my argument isn't actually about value, it's about the most pragmatic approach that actually gets the thing built. What that comes down to is a low enough initial figure of cost that can gain enough political support to succeed. I'm well aware there are parts of Metro that would be better value in the long run to do upfront, but I also think that some of those things will need to be sacrificed in order for the project to happen. I don't like it, but I'd rather a compromised Metro with expansion possibilities than no Metro, if the choice comes down to that.

I appreciate your point, and I agree to an extent. But this isnt a low cost scheme, its 3 billion at least, its a staggering sum of money in terms of anything that has gone before it. This isnt saying, "oh we can turn this 3 billion project into 1.5 billion" the figures we are debating, are just a total irrelevance at that level. I say go with 60m driverless HFV with 90m platforms. We cant say exactly without seeing the figures. But effectively you are talking absolute pocket change in the scheme of things, with going with the far more beneficial set up. I dont see the point in turning a 3 billion euro scheme from a silk purse into a sows ear over pocket change!

This government, it is claimed, will have 3.500,000,000 to send up in smoke this budget and most of it will be sent up in smoke! And here we are debating endlessly over a few mickey mouse tens of million! most of which will go back into government coffers nearly immediately!!!

its so typical of here. Here we are debating a scheme that will change the city and it has been reduced to a squabble over a pittance and some bloody GAA pitches and a few houses...

Zebra3

Idbatterim wrote: »

in terms of supporting it, I take it you mean?

Absolutely.

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

Yes but my argument isn't actually about value, it's about the most pragmatic approach that actually gets the thing built. What that comes down to is a low enough initial figure of cost that can gain enough political support to succeed. I'm well aware there are parts of Metro that would be better value in the long run to do upfront, but I also think that some of those things will need to be sacrificed in order for the project to happen. I don't like it, but I'd rather a compromised Metro with expansion possibilities than no Metro, if the choice comes down to that.

I'm not being critical of your post as I understand where you are coming from. But it really highlights the levels of acceptance we have sunk to.

david75

Why are the majority of stops on the south side and the route through the north side ignoring the larger populated areas?

Idbatterim

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm not being critical of your post as I understand where you are coming from. But it really highlights the levels of acceptance we have sunk to.

I agree, I get his point too, but I absolutely dont accept it. But this 3,000,000,000 project should not be turned into some capacity constrained joke from day 1, over 1-2% of the project budget. Honestly, if that is the figure that they are concerned with, I dont think they should be building it at all...

Will you be attending any of the public meetings Grandeeod?

bk

marno21 wrote: »

Glasnevin school concerned with Metrolink route:

That school is the one directly behind Na Fianna and is the one the owns a playing field that Na Fianna also use (which won't be impacted by these works).

They seem to have a very close relationship with Na Fianna. I suspect this is all tied up together and a "think of the children" stuff.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm not being critical of your post as I understand where you are coming from. But it really highlights the levels of acceptance we have sunk to.

I know, it's a severely compromised way of building infrastructure. The only thing I can hope is that NTA engineers are smart enough to design this all in a way that makes future expansion as simple and easy as it can possibly be.

Idbatterim

MJohnston wrote: »

I know, it's a severely compromised way of building infrastructure. The only thing I can hope is that NTA engineers are smart enough to design this all in a way that makes future expansion as simple and easy as it can possibly be.

Ill leave it at this, if the project cost dropped equivalent to the capacity reduction drop and could be rectified at little cost down the line, I would support that position, knowing, as you do, how this country works. When they cost reduction is a near total irrelevance, I simply dont agree with it...

donvito99

david75 wrote: »

Why are the majority of stops on the south side and the route through the north side ignoring the larger populated areas?

Do you live in Dublin? That 'majority' of stops you refer to form the existing Luas green line which will be upgraded to Metro capacity.

There are plenty of 'larger populated areas' being ignored, not everyone can have a Metro (at this time).

david75

donvito99 wrote: »

Do you live in Dublin? That 'majority' of stops you refer to form the existing Luas green line which will be upgraded to Metro capacity.

There are plenty of 'larger populated areas' being ignored, not everyone can have a Metro (at this time).

I do as it happens. And I see how these decisions go in terms of planning and working against residents yet ramping up property prices as an end game.

yabadabado

Yeah ramping up property prices is the end game with building the Metro :eek:

Stephen Strange

If they were to build 90m platforms, high or low, surely the additional rolling stock cost 60mv90m would be absolutely tiny? Should be 90m from the start imo.

tom1ie

Haven't got round to looking at the drawings for the stops but are there any plans for dedicated bike parking on a large scale?

citizen6

Re hfv vs lfv, I expect that politically it will come down to the amount of luas disruption during construction (however short-sighted that would be) rather than spending an extra €40m.

Grandeeod

Idbatterim wrote: »

Will you be attending any of the public meetings Grandeeod?

For the umpteenth time and yet again for my sins, I plan to attend. But I'll need a disguise as I'm flying solo for this one.:D

sdanseo

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.

I found the original place I saw these figures. Again as you said, based on the green line upgrade portion only. By most likely the proportions would be the same applied to the rest of the project.

From here: http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

 Scenario 1, with a 60m long, 2.65m wide low-floor light rail vehicle, operating at a headway
of 2 minutes, could provide a capacity of up to 13,200 PPDPH on this corridor for approx. €50
million;
 Scenario 3, with the same vehicle form factor and headway as Scenario 1 but with an increased
length of 90m, could provide a capacity of 22,300 PPDPH for approx. €95 million; and
 Scenario 2, with a high-floor fully automatic vehicle with 60m length, operating at a headway
of 90 seconds, could provide a capacity of approx. 18,000 PPDPH on this line section at a cost
of approx. €135 million.

LongboardPro

For people going to the public consultations, it's important to quiz the people from TII / NTA about why the trains should be driverless, HFV and how the short-term savings wouldn't be "that much" in the grand scheme of things. (I suppose mention that the "savings" would be gone in 1 - 2 years on drivers' pay as soneone pointed out earlier). The more people that say these things the better and they might take these points into consideration.

bk

Stephen Strange wrote: »

If they were to build 90m platforms, high or low, surely the additional rolling stock cost 60mv90m would be absolutely tiny? Should be 90m from the start imo.

I'm guessing that if they go with the 60m option (hfv or lfv), then they will only build the new stations (Ranelagh to Swords) with 90m platforms and leave the Ranelagh to Sandymont platforms at 60m.

They would then only increase the Ranelagh to Sandymouth platforms to 90m then at a later stage when needed.

citizen6 wrote: »

Re hfv vs lfv, I expect that politically it will come down to the amount of luas disruption during construction (however short-sighted that would be) rather than spending an extra €40m.

Yes, I suspect it is exactly that. The report on the Metrolink site doesn't go into details on what the disruption would be for the different options and how they could mitigate it.

Either way the Ranelagh tie-in will create major disruption. Though they mention bypassing this section by running the Luas down Ranelagh road.

Also even with the lfv options, they mention having to take a bit off the platforms in order to get wide 2.65m trams to fit. I wonder how that would work with continuing to run 2.4m trams on those platforms. Would leave a small gap.

Idbatterim

Here’s a simple analogy for the idiots. You go back in time and can build a two lane m50 for 2.9 billion or a 3 lane one for 3 billion. The 3 billion one will have much lower operating costs and longevity. Which do you choose?

Actually , I still think I know which option the idiots would go with ! I’ll bring up at the meeting, that is the driver based option “thrown in for humor”? they actually propose a system that won’t be in operation until nearly 2030 and in the land of strikes and “ de worker “ ... they then bang on a pout nothing but costs but don’t care about operational cost !