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

murphaph

Clearly everyone affected should get there say during the public consultation phase. Remember it was Na Fianna that started claiming they only had a day's notice or whatever it was. In fact they got a courtesy call before the project was announced.

I also tend to agree that a solution will be found but that solution should not strongly dictate where the critical infrastructure is built but should rather dictate what measures can be taken to mitigate against excess noise and disruption.

ignorance is strength

roadmaster wrote: »

I think a lot of yee or way over reacting to this Na Fianna issue. When any club, business or home owner is effected by a major project they are going to shout as loud as they can to get the best deal for themselves .

The Na Fianna PDF said nothing to bad about the metro because they are smarter than going mouthing off. Has anyone heard an official protest to stop this project by the club?. They know they can get a good deal. When i used to work on road projects i had major confrontations with local community groups and farmers where they said they would block the road. What did we do we negotiated with them and said we would do x y and z. Then everybody was happy.

The way some people here are talking you seem to think that the locals should not be aloud express any views or feelings on the metro unless its in line with your own. So everyone relax a deal will be struck and the metro will be built

Spell check was on a break, was it?

The Na Fianna response is different. Of course they’re allowed to express their views, but they’re exaggerating the consequences and are receiving massive media exposure. And although Na Fianna is bearing the criticism, it’s the political culture in this country that has us worried. There seems to be little national enthusiasm for this project, and it is entirely conceivable that the next government could drop it — especially if it’s an unstable coalition involving Sinn Fein.

ignorance is strength

murphaph wrote: »

Clearly everyone affected should get there say during the public consultation phase. Remember it was Na Fianna that started claiming they only had a day's notice or whatever it was. In fact they got a courtesy call before the project was announced.

I also tend to agree that a solution will be found but that solution should not strongly dictate where the critical infrastructure is built but should rather dictate what measures can be taken to mitigate against excess noise and disruption.

Apparently the president of Na Fianna was contacted a week in advance, but he was out of the country.

Zebra3

ignorance is strength wrote: »

Apparently the president of Na Fianna was contacted a week in advance, but he was out of the country.

Does being out of the country prevent people from being contacted?

ignorance is strength

Zebra3 wrote: »

Does being out of the country prevent people from being contacted?

I don’t know what your point is, but mine is that NTA attempted to give appropriate forewarning, despite what has been said about Na Fianna only being told a day in advance. When the president had returned, a meeting was held on a Tuesday, two days before the announcement on a Thursday.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we give the Na Fianna angle a rest. Perhaps I could nudge the discussion towards fully automated running: High floor vehicles; the need for passenger doors to protect the public; the type of ticketing - like the Dart with barriers or like the Luas with inspectors; etc. etc.

I am not saying don't talk of Na Fianna but do not repeat yourselves endlessly.

ignorance is strength

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: Can we give the Na Fianna angle a rest. Perhaps I could nudge the discussion towards fully automated running: High floor vehicles; the need for passenger doors to protect the public; the type of ticketing - like the Dart with barriers or like the Luas with inspectors; etc. etc.

I am not saying don't talk of Na Fianna but do not repeat yourselves endlessly.

Lol, like distracting a baby with a shiny toy. I can’t imagine that, fifty years from now, trains won’t be automated. Given the efficiency benefits and potential to run 24 hours, I would strongly favour driverless. I’m agnostic on high-floor, despite the benefits to capacity.

bk

ignorance is strength wrote: »

Lol, like distracting a baby with a shiny toy. I can’t imagine that, fifty years from now, trains won’t be automated. Given the efficiency benefits and potential to run 24 hours, I would strongly favour driverless. I’m agnostic on high-floor, despite the benefits to capacity.

Not just 24 hour running, but seemingly higher frequency too. 40 trains per hour per direction for dirverless versus 30 for driver operated.

That is 30% extra capacity right there. A no brainer IMO.

roadmaster

ignorance is strength wrote: »

Spell check was on a break, was it?

The Na Fianna response is different. Of course they’re allowed to express their views, but they’re exaggerating the consequences and are receiving massive media exposure. And although Na Fianna is bearing the criticism, it’s the political culture in this country that has us worried. There seems to be little national enthusiasm for this project, and it is entirely conceivable that the next government could drop it — especially if it’s an unstable coalition involving Sinn Fein.

Good to see your first response is to attack my Grammar rather than what i was saying in my post . The political culture comes from the people as you get what you vote for.

Back on topic is there any reason why you would not have a automated Metro. What is the majority of the metros being built around the world being controlled by? Is it automation or a driver upfront?

ignorance is strength

roadmaster wrote: »

Good to see your first response is to attack my Grammar rather than what i was saying in my post . The political culture comes from the people as you get what you vote for.

Just galling to be told to relax by someone who spells "you are" as "yee or". And I immediately followed it up with a comprehensive refutation of your post.

I voted for Ossian Smyth; I have't got what I voted for.

bk wrote: »

Not just 24 hour running, but seemingly higher frequency too. 40 trains per hour per direction for dirverless versus 30 for driver operated.

That is 30% extra capacity right there. A no brainer IMO.

Yeah, sorry, by efficiency I meant that. Am I right that much of the increase is accounted for by the passenger segregation? Could that not be had with segregated manned trains? We haven't heard much from Luas and Dart drivers, but I imagine they would be very resistant to a precedent being set for driverless trains.

Dats me

At the public consultation an engineer told me that the increase in trains per hour was mainly due to changing drivers or giving drivers a break at the end of the line before starting again. No need with automated.

Reason it wouldn't be would be if they have to go low floor because of the green line, don't think low floor can be automated

Zebra3

ignorance is strength wrote: »

I don’t know what your point is, but mine is that NTA attempted to give appropriate forewarning, despite what has been said about Na Fianna only being told a day in advance. When the president had returned, a meeting was held on a Tuesday, two days before the announcement on a Thursday.

I thought you were making excuses for NF. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we stop this sniping - about spelling or about anything else.

Quoting mod instructions, or other back seat modding will get a ban.

MJohnston

Dats me wrote: »

At the public consultation an engineer told me that the increase in trains per hour was mainly due to changing drivers or giving drivers a break at the end of the line before starting again. No need with automated.

Reason it wouldn't be would be if they have to go low floor because of the green line, don't think low floor can be automated

I'm not sure it's that a low floor train stops it being automated directly, I think it's that low floor trains means low platforms, which means people will think they can walk across the tracks (as they do with the Luas right now), which would be an impossible situation to run an automated system with (it has to be fully segregated).

Dats me

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not sure it's that a low floor train stops it being automated directly, I think it's that low floor trains means low platforms, which means people will think they can walk across the tracks (as they do with the Luas right now), which would be an impossible situation to run an automated system with (it has to be fully segregated).

I would presume you could still use doors at the platform to segregate passengers?

I think the main issue was that there are only 1 or maybe 2 suppliers of low floor automated trains and you wouldn't want to be held to ransom or there be a risk of you being left without a supplier in 10 years

ignorance is strength

Dats me wrote: »

I would presume you could still use doors at the platform to segregate passengers?

I think the main issue was that there are only 1 or maybe 2 suppliers of low floor automated trains and you wouldn't want to be held to ransom or there be a risk of you being left without a supplier in 10 years

This extract from the alignment study detailing requirements for driverless high-floor trains seems to support your point.

"To ensure passengers do not enter the track area (either accidently through falls or trips or deliberately through trespassing), Platform Safety Gates
(PSGs) with an approx. height of 1,500mm would be required at each platform edge, with the vehicle doors fully aligned with the gates when stopped at the platforms and both sets of doors opening and closing in sync. Full enclosure of the platform boundary would be achieved via barriers installed at the platform ends in addition to removal of the ramps and the existing pedestrian crossings between each side."

marno21

This Prime Time piece on the Western Rail Corridor shows how we could do with a lobby group for this project and a pro-rail lobby group in general. There was no such pro-Metro coverage on the Prime Time slot about the Metro 2 weeks ago bar Anne Graham and the discussion with the PR guy from Dublin Chamber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KypTTQQDAlU

If you can have that much defense of a total white elephant in the middle of a recession surely you can have a defense for Metrolink. Although in this instance I would agree with Colm McCarthy's views.

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

This Prime Time piece on the Western Rail Corridor shows how we could do with a lobby group for this project and a pro-rail lobby group in general. There was no such pro-Metro coverage on the Prime Time slot about the Metro 2 weeks ago bar Anne Graham and the discussion with the PR guy from Dublin Chamber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KypTTQQDAlU

If you can have that much defense of a total white elephant in the middle of a recession surely you can have a defense for Metrolink. Although in this instance I would agree with Colm McCarthy's views.

I get what you are saying, but it was a rail lobby group that got you the current Metrolink project and its route along with the DART upgrade and Whitworth road interchange. Not sure its what the lobby originally intended, but it highlights the influence (like the WRC) a lobby can make.

If the same rail lobby was still around today, the entire Na Fianna issue would have made great radio/TV along with the current Governments intentions.

Stephen15

ignorance is strength wrote: »

Yeah, sorry, by efficiency I meant that. Am I right that much of the increase is accounted for by the passenger segregation? Could that not be had with segregated manned trains? We haven't heard much from Luas and Dart drivers, but I imagine they would be very resistant to a precedent being set for driverless trains.

Driverless trains are nothing new they've been around since the 1970s many metros across Europe use them currently. There will still need to be staff there in the control room in stations and most driverless systems including the DLR have a train steward who can open and close the doors as well as drive the train in an emergency.

Anyway Luas and DART drivers will still have a job after Metrolink is opened so it's not like their being replaced by driverless trains and even if they were there would be good redundancies and retirement packages.

ignorance is strength

Stephen15 wrote: »

Driverless trains are nothing new they've been around since the 1970s many metros across Europe use them currently. There will still need to be staff there in the control room in stations and most driverless systems including the DLR have a train steward who can open and close the doors as well as drive the train in an emergency.

Anyway Luas and DART drivers will still have a job after Metrolink is opened so it's not like their being replaced by driverless trains and even if they were there would be good redundancies and retirement packages.

These are people who threatened to strike when Darts were increased in length to eight carriages; I don’t think they can be relied upon to respond rationally.

Control room would need only a fraction of current Dart drivers, and stewards would be paid less. Hadn’t considered that the lost service on the Green Line will be replaced by the section to Bray, but my point is a precedent would be set: if metro is automated, watch the public reaction if Dart drivers threaten to strike.

Stephen15

ignorance is strength wrote: »

These are people who threatened to strike when Darts were increased in length to eight carriages; I don’t think they can be relied upon to respond rationally.

Control room would need only a fraction of current Dart drivers, and stewards would be paid less. Hadn’t considered that the lost service on the Green Line will be replaced by the section to Bray, but my point is a precedent would be set: if metro is automated, watch the public reaction if Dart drivers threaten to strike.

It would be unlawful for them to do so as it's an issue that won't effect them or the company they work for as it will be a different company to Irish Rail. It's highly unlikely that IE will end up operating the Metro so I cannot see that happening.

ignorance is strength

marno21 wrote: »

Although in this instance I would agree with Colm McCarthy's views.

McCarthy is fast becoming one of my least favourite people. I can’t stand how he smugly pontificates on matters, while showing no economic insight and having appalling diction. He said there’s a national delusion that infrastructure spending is an inherent good. And then says, But it’s not — each project should be assessed on its own merits... But that’s just a counter assertion, without any supporting argument.

Stephen15 wrote: »

It would be unlawful for them to do so as it's an issue that won't effect them or the company they work for as it will be a different company to Irish Rail. It's highly unlikely that IE will end up operating the Metro so I cannot see that happening.

I mean strike over anything related to their wages/conditions... It weakens their position considerably.

marno21

ignorance is strength wrote: »

McCarthy is fast becoming one of my least favourite people. I can’t stand how he smugly pontificates on matters, while showing no economic insight and having appalling diction. He said there’s a national delusion that infrastructure spending is an inherent good. And then says, But it’s not — each project should be assessed on its own merits... But that’s just a counter assertion, without any supporting argument.

I'd imagine what he's on about there was the idea back a few years ago that because Kerry and Sligo had trains that there should be trains to everywhere for balance.

Metrolink has been assessed on its merits and will meet the requirements for cost/benefit under the Public Spending Code and the project appraisal guidelines by both DTTAS and DPER. Not sure why he's got an issue there. Spending 3bn on repaying debt would be foolish compared to the Metrolink given the price of debt in the current environment. If we are that stuck for cash for debt repayment there are a number of other places we can find the cash.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I'd imagine what he's on about there was the idea back a few years ago that because Kerry and Sligo had trains that there should be trains to everywhere for balance.

Metrolink has been assessed on its merits and will meet the requirements for cost/benefit under the Public Spending Code and the project appraisal guidelines by both DTTAS and DPER. Not sure why he's got an issue there. Spending 3bn on repaying debt would be foolish compared to the Metrolink given the price of debt in the current environment. If we are that stuck for cash for debt repayment there are a number of other places we can find the cash.

The investment on Metro and Dart expansion amounts to €5 billion over 10 years, so €500 million a year. In terms of the Gov spending, it is quite easily managed. Restoring pay to the civil service that had pay cuts as a result of the crash will cost that. Given that 10 year Gov bonds yield is at nearly zero, then it is not a problem, and economic growth will allow expanding Gov debt.

No, McCarthy is wrong. If Metrolink was there today, it would be full of fare paying passengers, glad to use it. Luas is already oversubscribed - both Red and Green lines. It needs to be built as quickly as possible with no cheap skate short cuts.

sdanseo

Just re. driverless and extra capacity. Officially the highest frequency on the tube in London is 36 tph.

Below shows they can achieve even more. Imagine this in Dublin. And this isn't even driverless (at least I don't think so, although some parts of the tube are automated, there is no mention of driverless here, just "automated signalling").

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/victoria-line-trains-now-run-every-100-seconds-making-it-the-second-most-frequent-line-in-the-world-a3544946.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ0zk4MWCQY

Middle Man

...and over there, you keep hearing that Britain lags behind the rest of Europe - well OMG, I hope that is not the case because where would that leave us??? :o:o

tom1ie

sdanseo wrote: »

Just re. driverless and extra capacity. Officially the highest frequency on the tube in London is 36 tph.

Below shows they can achieve even more. Imagine this in Dublin. And this isn't even driverless (at least I don't think so, although some parts of the tube are automated, there is no mention of driverless here, just "automated signalling").

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/victoria-line-trains-now-run-every-100-seconds-making-it-the-second-most-frequent-line-in-the-world-a3544946.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ0zk4MWCQY

brilliant. Simply brilliant.
I suppose it does go to show what can be achieved with hfv, no psg's and drivers at the helm. So maybe drivers and no safety gates wouldnt be the worst thing if the platforms were raised on the existing green line bit.

Ernest

The London Underground trains do have drivers. Except for the small bit known as Docklands Light Rail which is driverless. None of the London Underground system drives trains up the shopping streets, like the idiotic tram system now jamming-up Dublin.

Its easy to have 90 second frequency in a city of up to 10 million people and a full network of rail, meaning nearly everyone uses the Underground and car ownership in not necessary for most people - unlike Dublin which has only about one tenth the population and a very patchwork rail system much of which is slow, noisy and diesel-based (apart from the DART which only covers a single stretch along the coastal side of Dublin)

cgcsb

Ernest wrote: »

The London Underground trains do have drivers. Except for the small bit known as Docklands Light Rail which is driverless. None of the London Underground system drives trains up the shopping streets, like the idiotic tram system now jamming-up Dublin.

Its easy to have 90 second frequency in a city of up to 10 million people and a full network of rail, meaning nearly everyone uses the Underground and car ownership in not necessary for most people - unlike Dublin which has only about one tenth the population and a very patchwork rail system much of which is slow, noisy and diesel-based (apart from the DART which only covers a single stretch along the coastal side of Dublin)

DART will have much better coverage and frequency by 2027 and there'll be a strong feeder bus network. All going well there's a chance it won't be a complete sardine tin of commuters the day it opens like the luas was.

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

brilliant. Simply brilliant.
I suppose it does go to show what can be achieved with hfv, no psg's and drivers at the helm. So maybe drivers and no safety gates wouldnt be the worst thing if the platforms were raised on the existing green line bit.

London underground has platform doors at all new stations, on both the Jubillee Line and the new Crossrail 2 stations. Older stations were built before they were a thing and there are a variety of issues installing them now.

It is definitely much safer with them, then without. Plus they aren't really costly when added as part of a new build. So it would be stupid not to have them. The major cost of HFV is mostly the pedestrian overapass and lifts, followed by the cost of building up the platform. The doors are relatively very small cost.

Driverless is also a no brainer, will be much cheaper to run and makes it easier to have overnight service and higher frequency off-peak and weekends.