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

MJohnston · 28-03-2018 7:09pm

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 · 28-03-2018 7:13pm

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 · 28-03-2018 7:16pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

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

Absolutely.

Grandeeod · 28-03-2018 7:19pm

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 · 28-03-2018 7:21pm

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

Idbatterim · 28-03-2018 7:25pm

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 · 28-03-2018 7:25pm

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 · 28-03-2018 7:25pm

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 · 28-03-2018 7:27pm

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 · 28-03-2018 7:54pm

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 · 28-03-2018 8:43pm

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 · 28-03-2018 8:48pm

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

Stephen Strange · 28-03-2018 9:10pm

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 · 28-03-2018 9:27pm

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 · 28-03-2018 9:35pm

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 · 28-03-2018 9:53pm

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 · 28-03-2018 10:13pm

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 · 29-03-2018 8:11am

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 · 29-03-2018 9:34am

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 · 29-03-2018 10:17am

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 !

Idbatterim · 29-03-2018 10:19am

LongboardPro wrote: »

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.

you are right. But I find it very difficult to accept. That joe soap is meant to be trying to persuade the “experts” not to balls up a 3 billion scheme.

MJohnston · 29-03-2018 10:53am

Idbatterim wrote: »

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?

That's a bit of a disingenuous comparison though - you've completely invented those two figures, and kept them unrealistically similar. And do you have any proof that a 3 lane road would have lower operating costs compared to a two lane? That seems dubious.

Also it's a terrible analogy as it's just a direct substitution of one infrastructure project for another!

Idbatterim · 29-03-2018 10:58am

MJohnston wrote: »

That's a bit of a disingenuous comparison though - you've completely invented those two figures, and kept them unrealistically similar. And do you have any proof that a 3 lane road would have lower operating costs compared to a two lane? That seems dubious.

Also it's a terrible analogy as it's just a direct substitution of one infrastructure project for another!

They havent given us figures, on purpose most likely. Probably hard to justify the poor value for money scheme , if people knew the cent pinching that they are up too. We do know the marginally more expensive option is far superior ... in terms of lower operating cost. I am referring to driver base v driverless...

Heartbreak Hank · 29-03-2018 11:11am

bk wrote: »

Though they mention bypassing this section by running the Luas down Ranelagh road.

I can't even begin to think how that would work - particularly all the cost for a temporary diversion.

bk wrote: »

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

From a brief read, I think Ranelagh station is the most complex one to upgrade and wouldn't just be a case of adding an extra 30 m of platform at a later date, like it might be at the ones on the ground. Hopefully they would set this up for 90m when they are doing the first go round.

bk · 29-03-2018 11:14am

So I've done some back of the envelope maths. Based on the cost of the Swords to Ranelagh section (the completely new section), you are looking at a cost of about 155 million per km.

Ranelagh to Tallaght is about 9km, so you would be looking at a cost of about 1.3 billion extra. I'd say it would probably be more like 1.5 billion extra, since it would need to be all underground.

That is a hell of a lot more then a simple 100 million capacity upgrade.

So you would be looking at a 4.5 billion total versus 3 billion project!!

Don't get me wrong, I do think that once Metrolink is built, we should then go looking for a second line from North East to South West. But clearly this is a whole other project and line and would likely cost another 3 Billion or so.

CatInABox · 29-03-2018 12:39pm

bk wrote: »

So I've done some back of the envelope maths. Based on the cost of the Swords to Ranelagh section (the completely new section), you are looking at a cost of about 155 million per km.

Ranelagh to Tallaght is about 9km, so you would be looking at a cost of about 1.3 billion extra. I'd say it would probably be more like 1.5 billion extra, since it would need to be all underground.

That is a hell of a lot more then a simple 100 million capacity upgrade.

So you would be looking at a 4.5 billion total versus 3 billion project!!

Don't get me wrong, I do think that once Metrolink is built, we should then go looking for a second line from North East to South West. But clearly this is a whole other project and line and would likely cost another 3 Billion or so.

Yes, please, just get this project built first. Once this is built, others will be easier to get going.

tom1ie · 29-03-2018 1:52pm

bk wrote: »

So I've done some back of the envelope maths. Based on the cost of the Swords to Ranelagh section (the completely new section), you are looking at a cost of about 155 million per km.

Ranelagh to Tallaght is about 9km, so you would be looking at a cost of about 1.3 billion extra. I'd say it would probably be more like 1.5 billion extra, since it would need to be all underground.

That is a hell of a lot more then a simple 100 million capacity upgrade.

So you would be looking at a 4.5 billion total versus 3 billion project!!

Don't get me wrong, I do think that once Metrolink is built, we should then go looking for a second line from North East to South West. But clearly this is a whole other project and line and would likely cost another 3 Billion or so.

Is the 155 million per km based on driverless 90m hfv with psg’s?

bk · 29-03-2018 3:48pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Is the 155 million per km based on driverless 90m hfv with psg’s?

That is just a rough estimate based on the per km cost of the non green line section.

I don't think there would be much cost difference at all between hfv and lfv in the new sections. I assume the new underground stations will have psd's either way (to stop people from walking down the tunnel). The stations will most likely be mid island, so no over passes needed either way. So really the only difference would be a little more concrete needed for a higher platform, so completely irrelevant to the overall cost.

Idbatterim · 29-03-2018 3:49pm

lads, what is psg an abbreviation for?

bk · 29-03-2018 3:54pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

lads, what is psg an abbreviation for?

Actually sorry it is PSD, Platform Screen Doors.

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

Separates the passengers from the track. Screen the full length of the platform, with automatic doors in the screen that the train lines up with and both the train doors and the platform doors open together at the same time.

You probably have experienced them in some of the newer London Underground stations or at a bunch of airports with trains linking terminals.

Idbatterim · 29-03-2018 4:06pm

bk wrote: »

Actually sorry it is PSD, Platform Screen Doors.

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

Separates the passengers from the track. Screen the full length of the platform, with automatic doors in the screen that the train lines up with and both the train doors and the platform doors open together at the same time.

You probably have experienced them in some of the newer London Underground stations or at a bunch of airports with trains linking terminals.

thanks, assumed that was what you guys meant! yeah am familiar with them from loads of places...

tom1ie · 29-03-2018 4:58pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

lads, what is psg an abbreviation for?

Sorry probably my fault!

Thanks for clearing that up bk.
I hope to go to the public consultation in leopardstown on the 18/4 and some questions I want to ask are the following:
If there are to be no psd’s installed on the existing green section, will we take it the metro won’t be driverless.
If passengers can still cross tracks at stations how do they hope to run a train every 120 seconds, without introducing a large element of risk to the general public.
Hfv or lfv.
Can the p+r’s at estuary and carrickmines be increased dramatically in terms of capacity.
Will there be integrated ticketing for p+r and metro trip.
Will there be large scale secure bike parking at most metro stops. (In my opinion this will greatly increase the catchment area of the stops)

Feel free to correct or add more.

LongboardPro · 29-03-2018 5:02pm

Are platform screen doors required on all new builds?

sdanseo · 29-03-2018 5:34pm

LongboardPro wrote: »

Are platform screen doors required on all new builds?

Not remotely required.

But they prevent accidents, sadly some suicides, and from a more impersonal point of view they also prevent the substantial disruption after such an incident.

Sam Russell · 29-03-2018 5:51pm

sdanseo wrote: »

Not remotely required.

But they prevent accidents, sadly some suicides, and from a more impersonal point of view they also prevent the substantial disruption after such an incident.

They also cut down air flows that result from the wind from the piston effect that trains cause.

tom1ie · 29-03-2018 6:41pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

They also cut down air flows that result from the wind from the piston effect that trains cause.

Also I imagine they would guarantee frequency times as it would stop people crossing the tracks to get to the opposite platform.

sdanseo · 29-03-2018 6:44pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Also I imagine they would guarantee frequency times as it would stop people crossing the tracks to get to the opposite platform.

Platforms will be island-type, so generally there is no opposite platform.

Most metros run on third rail so you'd be mad to cross at ground level, although because of the way the green line is set up this will likely be pantograph/catenary powered.

Muahahaha · 29-03-2018 8:32pm

Prime Time tonight at 9.35pm will have a report on the new Metro. If there is a debate after the report then I am guessing Colm McCarthy will be on it.

jd · 29-03-2018 8:58pm

Looks like Miriam O'Callaghan is at the Na Fianna meeting
https://twitter.com/StainesJames/status/979438938229178368

marno21 · 29-03-2018 9:06pm

jd wrote: »

Looks like Miriam O'Callaghan is at the Na Fianna meeting
https://twitter.com/StainesJames/status/979438938229178368

https://twitter.com/rte_primetime/status/979448734105985024

tom1ie · 29-03-2018 9:10pm

sdanseo wrote: »

Platforms will be island-type, so generally there is no opposite platform.

Most metros run on third rail so you'd be mad to cross at ground level, although because of the way the green line is set up this will likely be pantograph/catenary powered.

Sorry I ment on the existing green line section south of the tie in.

ricimaki · 29-03-2018 9:39pm

Prime Time just starting now.

MayoSalmon · 29-03-2018 9:40pm

On primetime now...this couldn't be anymore Irish

prunudo · 29-03-2018 9:47pm

Dermot bannon was on the Last word earlier talking about other things but also referred his objection to the use of the na fianna land.

tom1ie · 29-03-2018 9:50pm

This is sickening. Prime time trying their best to defeat the metro.

LongboardPro · 29-03-2018 9:55pm

Well that was disgusting to watch.

tom1ie · 29-03-2018 9:58pm

Sean barret.
Overcapacity trains
Empty trains
Ripping up luas lines.

Ffs!!! This is a joke.

CatInABox · 29-03-2018 10:11pm

Not sure I want to watch it to be honest, quite depressing just reading the reaction here.

ignorance is strength · 29-03-2018 10:20pm

So goddam parochial. The heart of Drumcondra! Currently watching as the two GAA lads (and "newbie" Dermot Bannon) tell their sob story with a background of sad faces. Is this compelling for anyone?

Most disappointing is how poorly the argument for the metro was made. Why not a visual to show how it would integrate with other lines? Instead we saw multiple angles of the model Dart railway. (Perhaps the NTA is to blame for not having provided those.) Why no detailed mention of the significance of connecting Swords, Ireland's fastest growing town, to the city, as well as well as connecting with the airport?

Colm McCarthy was also opposed to the Luas, questioning the "viability" of two disconnected lines. And I remember a friend telling me he opposed something significant related to the Dart. He seems to oppose any government spending on infrastructure.

marno21 · 29-03-2018 10:22pm

ignorance is strength wrote: »

So goddam parochial. The heart of Drumcondra! Currently watching as the two GAA lads (and "newbie" Dermot Bannon) tell their sob story with a background of sad faces. Is this compelling for anyone?

Most disappointing is how poorly the argument for the metro was made. Why not a visual to show how it would integrate with other lines? Instead we saw multiple angles of the model Dart railway. (Perhaps the NTA is to blame for not having provided those.) Why no detailed mention of the significance of connecting Swords, Ireland's fastest growing town, to the city, as well as well as connecting with the airport?

Colm McCarthy was also opposed to the Luas, questioning the "viability" of two disconnected lines. And I remember a friend telling me he opposed something significant related to the Dart. He seems to oppose any government spending on infrastructure.

Rail infrastructure. He has no issue with motorways

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

Comments