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

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

He said the design was to accommodate 90 metre trains with station boxes of 110 metres or so, but that the current view is that 65 m trains at 2 minute headway would give adequate capacity to 2057. Their figures suggest that 15,000 passengers per direction per hour can be catered for with the current proposal - 65 metre trains and 2 minutes headway, with an annual capacity of 50 million passengers per year.

Can I just ask so I’m clear in my head, the stations will be 110 meters the trains will be 65 mts with a 2 minute frequency which gives leeway in the future to increase both frequency and train length? (I realize at this stage it’s not set in stone but that’s the preferred set up) if that’s it it seems reasonable.

bk

Irish Gauge versus Standard Gauge

The advantage of standard gauge is that well it is standard! It is very widely used throughout Europe and that makes it relatively easy to purchase standard off the shelf train designs and equipment.

The disadvantage of Irish Gauge is that it is little used outside of Ireland and that means more expense and delays when ordering trains and equipment.

Over the years we have seen train orders for Irish Rail being very difficult, costing more then they should, being more complex, less options, late deliveries, etc.

On the other hand ordering trams for Luas seems to largely gone relatively smoothly and easy.

Everything about the Luas seems to have been largely geared towards using mostly standard off the shelf, well tested equipment. Standard trams, standard signalling, standard power systems, etc. and that seems to largely paid off with a vastly more reliable and less troublesome system then Irish Rail horrible miss mash of weird Victorian rail standards.

I'm glad that from everything I've heard and read so far, they are taking the same approach with Metro. Mostly tried and tested systems across Europe, which helps reduce risk.

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is most unlikely to be considered. It is just as bonkers to consider the Metros running at a frequency of one every 90 seconds. However, that is what the documentation on Metrolink claims. We cannot even get darts to run on time with a fifteen minute frequency.

And you want to "infect" Metrolink with that incredibly poor operational environment of Irish Rail!

In my opinion, best to keep the two far apart.

Luas, manages to run at a frequency of every 3 minutes, with lots of crappy on-street sections, so 90 seconds for an underground, fully segregated, automated system isn't a stretch. Though it is probably the limits of human performance in terms of boarding.

bk

salmocab wrote: »

Can I just ask so I’m clear in my head, the stations will be 110 meters the trains will be 65 mts with a 2 minute frequency which gives leeway in the future to increase both frequency and train length? (I realize at this stage it’s not set in stone but that’s the preferred set up) if that’s it it seems reasonable.

From the initial plans and drawings it would seem that that station boxes are in the 110 to 120 meter range, with 100 meter or so platforms.

It would seem to think that opening initially with 60 to 65 meters trains at 2 minute frequency will be sufficient capacity of 2027 and I'd say they are probably largely right.

If they do go ahead with both of the above then it gives them two options to increase capacity:

- Increase frequency, trains every 90 seconds
- Increase the train length to 90 meters

Of course they could also combine the two above to give maximum capacity.

jd

Sam Russell wrote: »

He said the design was to accommodate 90 metre trains with station boxes of 110 metres or so, but that the current view is that 65 m trains at 2 minute headway would give adequate capacity to 2057. Their figures suggest that 15,000 passengers per direction per hour can be catered for with the current proposal - 65 metre trains and 2 minutes headway, with an annual capacity of 50 million passengers per year.

This is from the document about the Green Line Upgrade
http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

4.1 Scenario 1: 60m LFV – Driver Controlled
Scenario 1 envisages NMN will operate similar to the current Luas system with driver-controlled LFVs. Vehicles sets are 2.65m wide, low floor and 60m long, operating at a peak of 30 trains per hour (TPH).
For this level of service, segregation of all road junctions along the route is required and is considered as part of this scenario.
Using passenger capacity figures received from vehicle manufacturers as part of the TII NMN Vehicle Configuration study, a sample 2.65m wide, 64m long low-floor vehicle has a capacity of approx. 440 passengers (at 4 passengers per m2). Adjusted for 60m, this figure reduces to 413 and at 30 TPH, this
provides an estimated system capacity of 12,390 passengers per direction per hour (PPDPH).

4.2 Scenario 2: 60m HFV – Fully Automatic
Scenario 2 envisages NMN operating as a fully automatic metro system, similar to the Copenhagen, Barcelona or Brescia metro systems. Vehicles are 2.65m wide, high floor and 60m long and the system can operate at a peak of 40 TPH. For this level of service, segregation of all road junctions along the
route is required and is considered as part of this scenario.
Using the Copenhagen trainsets as an example, a 60m cabinless vehicle has a capacity of approx. 450 passengers (at 4 passengers per m2 ). At 40 TPH, this provides an estimated system capacity of 18,000PPDPH.

4.3 Scenario 3: 90m LFV – Driver Controlled
Scenario 3 envisages that NMN will operate similar to the current Luas system with driver-controlled vehicles. Train sets are 2.65m wide, low floor and 90m long (which would represent the maximum extension length), operating at a peak of 30 TPH. For this level of service, segregation of all road junctions along the route is required and is considered as part of this scenario.
Using passenger capacity figures as derived for the original Metro North project by Jacobs, a 2.4m wide, 90m long low-floor vehicle has a capacity of approx. 674 passengers (at 4 passengers per m2).
A change in vehicle width to 2.65m was estimated to provide an increase in capacity of approx. 10.4%, resulting in a figure of 744 passengers. At 30 TPH, this provides an estimated system capacity of 22,320 PPDPH

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Irish Gauge versus Standard Gauge

And you want to "infect" Metrolink with that incredibly poor operational environment of Irish Rail!

I think this was the driver of the original decision for Luas to go 'standard'. The gauge has no bearing on signalling, or anything else. All it affects is the bogies. If Irish Rail had updated their signalling systems, modernised their operation, ran a tidy well run operation, were less in thrall to the unions, then there would not be the antipathy towards them from officialdom. It is this that makes IR toxic.

The die is cast and there is no going back, but if the Luas was Irish gauge, then so would Metro, and then the extension to Donabate would allow Darts to go to the airport from Drogheda (assuming the Dart expansion were to happen).

It is not going to happen so no point in continuing this.

AlmightyCushion

jd wrote: »

This is from the document about the Green Line Upgrade
http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

I really hope they go with HFV. 50% more capacity and being automated means it's more likely to be 24 hours and have a high frequency at off peak times. Sure, it's more expensive in the short term but the long term savings and advantages definitely out weigh that.

Sam Russell

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I really hope they go with HFV. 50% more capacity and being automated means it's more likely to be 24 hours and have a high frequency at off peak times. Sure, it's more expensive in the short term but the long term savings and advantages definitely out weigh that.

Automation implies passenger platform doors to keep passengers from being struck by trains. High floor implies more adjustment (raising) to platforms on the Green line bit. 90 metre trains implies more work initially on the platforms which could wait, Low floor vehicles implies low platforms (as Luas) and would permit passengers on track - which is a safety hazard, particularly with automation, hence Passenger Platform doors.

Is it envisaged that every Metro train will go from end to end on every trip? How will frequency be matched to the passenger demand?

salmocab

bk wrote: »

From the initial plans and drawings it would seem that that station boxes are in the 110 to 120 meter range, with 100 meter or so platforms.

It would seem to think that opening initially with 60 to 65 meters trains at 2 minute frequency will be sufficient capacity of 2027 and I'd say they are probably largely right.

If they do go ahead with both of the above then it gives them two options to increase capacity:

- Increase frequency, trains every 90 seconds
- Increase the train length to 90 meters

Of course they could also combine the two above to give maximum capacity.

Cheers that’s what I thought but sometimes reading here it get difficult to sift through some of the fiction

Idbatterim

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I really hope they go with HFV. 50% more capacity and being automated means it's more likely to be 24 hours and have a high frequency at off peak times. Sure, it's more expensive in the short term but the long term savings and advantages definitely out weigh that.

given that they only care about being able to do it as cheap as possible and "value" not coming into it, on a 3 billion euro + project, I am fully expecting the 60m lowfloor, driver operated tram :rolleyes:

Sam Russell

The 90 second frequency would only be possible with fully automated trains.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think this was the driver of the original decision for Luas to go 'standard'. The gauge has no bearing on signalling, or anything else. All it affects is the bogies. If Irish Rail had updated their signalling systems, modernised their operation, ran a tidy well run operation, were less in thrall to the unions, then there would not be the antipathy towards them from officialdom. It is this that makes IR toxic.

I think the reality of you having to pay a premium for non standard gauge trains and delays in delivery also played a major part in the decision.

Look at the issues they are having now with the 54m trams since they are a special order and the first of their kind, with all the related teething problems, versus how smoothly earlier orders went.

Much easier to just ring up Alstom and order a couple of new standard trams off their normal line, then trying to negotiate with them to tool up a different line to build Irish Gauge trains.

I'm sure keeps Luas as far away from IR as possible was the cherry on top. And for the most part it has worked spectacularly well. We certainly don't want to mess with that now.

As for IR, well they need to focus on sorting out their own house first and proving themselves.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The die is cast and there is no going back, but if the Luas was Irish gauge, then so would Metro, and then the extension to Donabate would allow Darts to go to the airport from Drogheda (assuming the Dart expansion were to happen).

I don't see it bringing much advantage and tons of downside, just not worth it IMO.

I do think Metro should be extended to Donabate eventually and a nice interchange with Irish Rail there, but a quick change of train here would be no big deal. Such changes are done tens of thousands of times every day in London, etc.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

As for IR, well they need to focus on sorting out their own house first and proving themselves.

Agreed. They still do not have a 10 min Dart service.

I do think Metro should be extended to Donabate eventually and a nice interchange with Irish Rail there, but a quick change of train here would be no big deal. Such changes are done tens of thousands of times every day in London, etc.

It should be done from the start as it is 5 km across green fields.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is it envisaged that every Metro train will go from end to end on every trip? How will frequency be matched to the passenger demand?

Most likely if they go with fully automated. Keeps things nice and simple in terms of operations.

They can just run out extra trains prior to the peaks.

Thing with automated systems, is that they tend to run at a higher frequency even off peak. The biggest cost of running off peak services is driver wages and also issues and complexity around schedules, breaks, toilet breaks, working hour rules, union agreements, etc.

With fully automated you don't have those issues and there isn't much extra cost (just a bit more electricity and a bit more wear and tear) to running at higher frequencies off peak, so the trains are just there when you need them at peak times.

salmocab

When I lived in Australia if you got off the underground at Sydney airport you paid extra on your ticket, obviously a premium just for that stop, it was cheaper to go on past it. I presume we won’t hsve that kind of nonsense here.

G_R

salmocab wrote: »

When I lived in Australia if you got off the underground at Sydney airport you paid extra on your ticket, obviously a premium just for that stop, it was cheaper to go on past it. I presume we won’t hsve that kind of nonsense here.

Was in Stockholm recently and it was an extra 12eur or something to use the barriers in Arlanda airport!

I really hope we don't have that kind of crap here

salmocab

G_R wrote: »

Was in Stockholm recently and it was an extra 12eur or something to use the barriers in Arlanda airport!

I really hope we don't have that kind of crap here

I imagine staff don’t pay it but that’s some price

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

It should be done from the start as it is 5 km across green fields.

I partly agree, but I also see why they don't.

It helps keep it separate from Irish Rail as much as possible. I'd say the thinking is get the Metro built first and proven, the people of Dublin will love it and then extend it.

If you build it to Donabate now, it would quickly snowball like this:

- If you build it to Donabate, sure it should be Irish gauge so DARTs from Drogheda can run on it.

- Now it needs to be 1500V DC and Irish Rail signalling and control.

- And sure maybe we will want to run trains from Belfast to the Airport, kiss goodbye to decent frequency.

- Ah now lads, we can't be having any of this automated stuff, it will need to be Irish Rail drivers, so out the door goes 90 seconds frequency, high off peak, services, night time services, etc.

- Irish Rail Drivers, you actually expect us to train up new drivers for this new service?! hahaha

I can just see the 3 billion tunnel sitting empty for years as it is held hostage.

So yes, I can totally see why they aren't initially heading to Donabate, best to avoid the above possible mess. Get it built first and then there won't be any argument like the above once extended.

Stephen15

Would it not be better to extend the Metro eastwards to Malahide which would provide a connection with the Dart and Northern commuter services perhaps even The Enterprise could even stop there to provide a Metro connection for Enterpise passengers and build a stop in Seabury. Donabate is much smaller than Malahide 7,444 population of Donabate vs. 16,550 population of Malahide.

Extending it to Donabate would just create more urban sprawl in an already green field area where as Malahide is already a built up suburb. I think a DART line extension would adequately cover Donabate.

Sierra Oscar

Taoiseach wants alternative route for Metro North

Sigh.

Using Na Fianna's grounds is a non-runner.

bk

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Taoiseach wants alternative route for Metro North

Sigh.

Using Na Fianna's grounds is a non-runner.

Horrible on-goal for Na Fianna. They will now get no pay out, no new great accessibility to their grounds and the hatred of their neighbours who will now not benefit from having a Metro on their doorstep and increased house values.

BonnieSituation

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Taoiseach wants alternative route for Metro North

Sigh.

Using Na Fianna's grounds is a non-runner.

I was just sent a screenshot of a tweet referring to his statement. I'm apoplectic.

Definitely thought we'd get a year out of it.

Stephen15

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Taoiseach wants alternative route for Metro North

Sigh.

Using Na Fianna's grounds is a non-runner.

Taoiseach doesn't really have much say have civil servants will make the decision at the end of the day I would imagine.

Zebra3

bk wrote: »

Horrible on-goal for Na Fianna. They will now get no pay out, no new great accessibility to their grounds and the hatred of their neighbours who will now not benefit from having a Metro on their doorstep and increased house values.

Hopefully it’s just calling their bluff...

BonnieSituation

Stephen15 wrote: »

Taoiseach doesn't really have much say have civil servants will make the decision at the end of the day I would imagine.

Oh Stephen. You for real?

Political interference is why everything in this place is a joke.

Sierra Oscar

Stephen15 wrote: »

Taoiseach doesn't really have much say have civil servants will make the decision at the end of the day I would imagine.

It’s a pretty important statement to make, it means all representatives in the area will follow suit and demand an alternative route.

The project requires Government funding so what the Taoiseach says matters.

jd

No way the TBM site will be at Na Fianna. Rte Radio News reporting that Leo said that the route should not be under Na Fianna. (I don't think that is what he said)

donvito99

As long as an 'alternative route' doesn't principally kill the Whitworth Road interchange concept, then it's not a total disaster.

The most jarring implications of this glib statement in the Dail are further delays which, lingering long enough, could scunder the project for another decade.

Sierra Oscar

jd wrote: »

No way the TBM site will be at Na Fianna. Rte Radio News reporting that Leo said that the route should not be under Na Fianna. (I don't think that is what he said)

RTÉ report isn’t accurate (shows how informed they are on it), the Taoiseach was referring to the disruption that would be caused by the TBM site.

donvito99 wrote: »

The most jarring implications of this glib statement in the Dail are further delays which, lingering long enough, could scunder the project for another decade.

That’s what I find most disturbing to be honest. TD’s at it again making statements in the Dáil before the public consultation process even finishes. If this keeps up then there will inevitably be delays to the project and before we know it the next down turn will have arrived. :rolleyes:

salmocab

Michael martins quote is interesting sounds like he’s no fan of metro at all, although as opposition politicians think they are supposed to oppose everything.

LeinsterDub

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Taoiseach wants alternative route for Metro North

Sigh.

Using Na Fianna's grounds is a non-runner.

To be honest this whole Na Fianna thing had the potential to become an Irish Water best avoided.