Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

lucernarian

salmocab wrote: »

You understand well enough.

Just wanted to chime in here that I honestly don't follow the gist of your post.

There's been an acceptance of figures provided for justifying the design decisions taken, with CBAs based off "best guesses" of critical usage, design and especially costing aspects.

I'm skeptical about a lot of what TII has provided in its documentation - even the dreadful North Dublin/Fingal Transport Study did at least provide its base points for anticipated transport corridor usage for the upcoming decade (it horribly underestimated the usage numbers for this period of time already, btw).

So to me it reads like an appeal to authority, rather than an actual justification of what TII describe as the max tph for the existing green line.

Now, I'm not seriously considering that the likes of the Adelaide Road junction can sustain 30 tph. Even the Yamanote Line in Tokyo with one or two level crossings, seems to be limited to max 24 tph at peaks.

lucernarian

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: I know this thread is about 'alternative routes' and that allows a bit of latitude, but it certainly is not about 'alternative facts'. Can you take the Metrolink documentation as facts, and not fiction. If they say 24 tph is the max, then that is a fact beyond argument.

Hey Sam,

As you haven't replied to PMs on occasion in the past, can I ask you to clarify what you mean here?

antoinolachtnai

Dunville Avenue and the junction in Sandyford are just too busy to be running any Yamanote lines through. The traffic would back up all over the place.

The level crossing on the Yamanote is a fairly quiet road.

Why is it a bad thing to take a group of engineers’ word that you can’t fit 30 tph on the Luas system?

I hate to keep returning to the variations on this theme, but is there any expert anywhere who believes this is advisable or even possible?

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Dunville Avenue and the junction in Sandyford are just too busy to be running any Yamanote lines through. The traffic would back up all over the place.

The level crossing on the Yamanote is a fairly quiet road.

Why is it a bad thing to take a group of engineers’ word that you can’t fit 30 tph on the Luas system?

I hate to keep returning to the variations on this theme, but is there any expert anywhere who believes this is advisable or even possible?

Did I say it was a "bad thing" though?

Sam Russell

lucernarian wrote: »

Hey Sam,

As you haven't replied to PMs on occasion in the past, can I ask you to clarify what you mean here?

I always reply to PMs. Send me a PM and I will reply.

prunudo

Did anybody hear the guy from Dublin Metro on Newstalk breakfast this morning. 6 metro lines for €9bn and built by 2025.

I guess they've never dealt with trying to get big infrastructure projects through planning in this country. Can you imagine the amount of nimbys on that many lines.

jd

This is Cormac Rabbitte's plan again
http://www.metrodublin.ie/

HR10 option in
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Fingal_North_Dublin_Transport_Study_Final_June_2015.pdf

and

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Appraisal_Report_19112014_final.pdf

Markcheese

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/private-funding-could-provide-dublin-with-new-metro-by-2025-says-dublin-metro-chief-889462.html

I just read this on the examiner site, there's not much detail in it and is probably pie in the sky but hey it can't be worse or slower than all the other metres we've built...

Idbatterim

IF it’s cheaper , or more time efficient, not a chance they’ll go for it here!

JohnC.

It's probably easy to promise 6 metro lines in 6 years when you know you won't have to deliver.

cgcsb

This ole chestnut again? What towns has yer man sold monorails to? remind me again.

Sam Russell

Markcheese wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/private-funding-could-provide-dublin-with-new-metro-by-2025-says-dublin-metro-chief-889462.html

I just read this on the examiner site, there's not much detail in it and is probably pie in the sky but hey it can't be worse or slower than all the other metres we've built...

That article, dated Dec 3rd 2019 talks about Metro North, in planning for the North side of Dublin. The current plan is Metrolink for a North South Metro.

I think that is a rehash of an old article by Cormac Rabbitte, long debunked.

prunudo

What worries me about the likes of this proposal gettings air time and media space is that it detracts from the actual Metrolink plan thats in process of being designed.
The last thing we need is some white elephant plan that people (with an agenda against the current Metrolink plan) start believing is possible to build for the value or time frame mentioned.

At this stage we just need to stick to one plan and get it built, there has been far too many delays as it is.

LeinsterDub

https://amp.breakingnews.ie/ireland/private-funding-could-provide-dublin-with-new-metro-by-2025-says-dublin-metro-chief-889462.html
Interesting article here.

Synode

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://amp.breakingnews.ie/ireland/private-funding-could-provide-dublin-with-new-metro-by-2025-says-dublin-metro-chief-889462.html
Interesting article here.

Your link not working on desktop so here's one that does

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/private-funding-could-provide-dublin-with-new-metro-by-2025-says-dublin-metro-chief-889462.html

Sam Russell

jvan wrote: »

What worries me about the likes of this proposal gettings air time and media space is that it detracts from the actual Metrolink plan thats in process of being designed.
The last thing we need is some white elephant plan that people (with an agenda against the current Metrolink plan) start believing is possible to build for the value or time frame mentioned.

At this stage we just need to stick to one plan and get it built, there has been far too many delays as it is.

Such a plan is cheaper to build because it is a pure paper exercise - and never will a single shovel begin construction.

Why is it cheaper? Well, it isn't. It is a dream.

How can six metros be built before even the current single one be built? Well it is a dream, not requiring ABP approval. No NIMBYs disturbed by this proposal.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Such a plan is cheaper to build because it is a pure paper exercise - and never will a single shovel begin construction.

Why is it cheaper? Well, it isn't. It is a dream.

How can six metros be built before even the current single one be built? Well it is a dream, not requiring ABP approval. No NIMBYs disturbed by this proposal.

It's not 6 Metros though, it's 3 lines meeting at the centre, same as if you count Metrolink as 2 lines, one north of SSG and one south of SSG or any other arbitrary centrepoint.

prunudo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Such a plan is cheaper to build because it is a pure paper exercise - and never will a single shovel begin construction.

Why is it cheaper? Well, it isn't. It is a dream.

How can six metros be built before even the current single one be built? Well it is a dream, not requiring ABP approval. No NIMBYs disturbed by this proposal.

Agree, its all fantasy land stuff. But it's worrying how easy they get to sell their idea in the media.
Name dropping Lord stepaside, Madrid and ABP.
Regular Joe soap hears this news and believes it to be fact, then starts question the cost of Metrolink and before you know it the NTA are on the back foot trying to sell it.
Just look at the grief the current Metrolink plan is getting. We can't get bogged down in re designs year after year.

Get Metrolink through planning and start planning other lines while its being built.
There's been way to much can kicking with public transport infrastructure already.

Kellyconor1982

jvan wrote: »

Agree, its all fantasy land stuff. But it's worrying how easy they get to sell their idea in the media.
Name dropping Lord stepaside, Madrid and ABP.
Regular Joe soap hears this news and believes it to be fact, then starts question the cost of Metrolink and before you know it the NTA are on the back foot trying to sell it.
Just look at the grief the current Metrolink plan is getting. We can't get bogged down in re designs year after year.

Get Metrolink through planning and start planning other lines while its being built.
There's been way to much can kicking with public transport infrastructure already.

I agree completely but it would be interesting to see how Madrid managed to build their metro so cheaply and if there are lessons for us further down the line. I'm aware construction costs would be a fraction there than here but still worth having the discussion.

Sam Russell

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

I agree completely but it would be interesting to see how Madrid managed to build their metro so cheaply and if there are lessons for us further down the line. I'm aware construction costs would be a fraction there than here but still worth having the discussion.

The cost of Metrolink is a guess. It is based on estimates - but no hard facts because it is the first underground railway to be built here. The Port Tunnel cost - I think - a billion and is a tunnel of similar size to the Metrolink one - 18 km of tunnel. So, if the tunnel cost €1 billion, what costs the €2 billion balance? Trains, platforms, stations?

So how can this new crowd do it so cheaply?

Is it the strict planning and design we have to do that pushes up the price?

Or is it something else?

Also, it is an open competition, so if that is truly competitive, then we should get a just price.

cameramonkey

Sam Russell wrote: »

The cost of Metrolink is a guess. It is based on estimates - but no hard facts because it is the first underground railway to be built here. The Port Tunnel cost - I think - a billion and is a tunnel of similar size to the Metrolink one - 18 km of tunnel. So, if the tunnel cost €1 billion, what costs the €2 billion balance? Trains, platforms, stations?

The port tunnel is two tunnels.One for North bound traffic one for south.

Would a metro require two tunnels or one?

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

The cost of Metrolink is a guess. It is based on estimates - but no hard facts because it is the first underground railway to be built here. The Port Tunnel cost - I think - a billion and is a tunnel of similar size to the Metrolink one - 18 km of tunnel. So, if the tunnel cost €1 billion, what costs the €2 billion balance? Trains, platforms, stations?

So how can this new crowd do it so cheaply?

Is it the strict planning and design we have to do that pushes up the price?

Or is it something else?

Also, it is an open competition, so if that is truly competitive, then we should get a just price.

Port tunnel is less than 5 kms I think, even for the 2 tunnels that’s less than 10.

Rulmeq

salmocab wrote: »

Port tunnel is less than 5 kms I think, even for the 2 tunnels that’s less than 10.

According to wikipedia, it's 4.5km

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Port_Tunnel


The tunnels are 4.5 km (2.8 mi) in length and total project length of 5.6 km (3.5 mi). It had final cost of approximately €752 million.

Sam Russell

cameramonkey wrote: »

The port tunnel is two tunnels.One for North bound traffic one for south.

Would a metro require two tunnels or one?

The Port Tunnel is two tunnels of larger diameter than the proposed monotube Metrolink design. Consider the two tunnels as one long tunnel.

It is the nearest we have to a metro project. The costs are significantly less than the projected costs of Metrolink.

Dats me

Do you have information to suggest that they'll use the monotube option or are you just assuming that it makes sense?

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Port Tunnel is two tunnels of larger diameter than the proposed monotube Metrolink design. Consider the two tunnels as one long tunnel.

It is the nearest we have to a metro project. The costs are significantly less than the projected costs of Metrolink.

the two aren’t comparable for pricing, the port tunnel is shorter and wider than the metro will be, it was also built long enough ago that inflation would see its costs be higher now. Along with the costs of rails, stations, the depot and massive electrical infrastructure as well as the cost of the above ground section at northern end this means comparing the two is a bit of a waste of time.

bk

There are currently building 6 Metro lines in Riyadh, cost is $22.5 Billion or $3.75 Billion pre line, about 3.3 billion Euro. So all very much inline with Metrolink cost.

Looking at this guys plan, it isn't 6 Metro lines for 9 billion, it is just 3 lines for 9bn, which again would be inline with Metrolink.

Looking at Madrid, there isn't anything particularly special about it *. It is a Metro/Rapid Transit system that looks very similar to what is being planned for Metrolink.

* Obviously Madrids system is great because of how many lines they have and how extensive it is. But they have been building it for 100 years, it is more like London Undergound, then a smaller cities newer Metro's like Copenhagen or Amsterdam, I don't see any reason why Madrid would be cheaper.

BTW from his website, he mentions using Irish gauge and building it to DART standard!!! Well that would certainly push the cost up way more then Metrolink cost, it would be a heavy rail system then, more in line with the much higher costs of Dart Underground.

So yes, I'd say this is all total nonsense.

antoinolachtnai

Your south western line would result in thousands more traveling on the luas far sooner than the forecast to which you refer. How would you cope with this? Would you just move the frequency up to 40 tph? It is after all an arbitrary limit.

salmocab

40 cars in 90 secs is a car every 2.25 seconds, it’s a small tight crossing not a dual carriage way. That’s not a reasonable expectation of what can cross a track.

antoinolachtnai

salmocab wrote: »

40 cars in 90 secs is a car every 2.25 seconds, it’s a small tight crossing not a dual carriage way. That’s not a reasonable expectation of what can cross a track.

When will you get 90 seconds? There’s a tram every 60 seconds. In practice it will take 17 seconds to pass, and the signal time will be longer.