Maglev approved for Munich

antoinolachtnai · 01-11-2007 2:37pm

bk wrote: »

€80 million would still easily fit in the €136 million fare takings.

You say above that most of LU is underground (therefore more expensive to maintain) while much of Metro North is above ground and therefore should be much cheaper to maintain, in line with any normal stretch of rail line.

I said the opposite. The underground stretch is quite long for us - is it around half the length now? Incidentally, rail line in general is expensive to maintain no matter where it is. I am not saying it is not worthwhile, but it is definitely expensive.

You also seem to be ignoring that LU is a 140 year old, very heavily used, heavy rail metro system and that the current maintenance costs include a massive refurbishment and overhaul project to increase capacity.

Sure in 100 years we will also need to do the same, but the ongoing maintenance costs for the next 50 years will likely be far less then that and even if it is, then as my maths has shown, it can still easily be covered by the fares.

The LU is very different in many ways, for sure. But it is important to have an idea of how colossal the costs can get. Railway maintenance in the UK, on both mainline and on underground has lurched from crisis to crisis over the last 15 years, mainly as a result of unsuccessful efforts to keep costs under control. It's very complicated and very expensive, once you get into high frequencies, high speeds and late night operations.

I think there is an inclination to underestimate the complexity of running this thing even when it has been built and is brand new. It's not just a matter of building it. You need a lot of skilled staff to keep the doors open on an underground railway.

For comparison, what are the running costs of the Luas? I'm not sure, but the income would appear to be about 70 million euros, with a small surplus, and there is no renewal bill or even much maintenance to do as yet. Metro will certainly be more than that.

Every underground station will have to be constantly staffed. There will be a big complicated control centre. There are endless safety checks to do. It's a big deal.

bk · 01-11-2007 4:23pm

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I said the opposite. The underground stretch is quite long for us - is it around half the length now? Incidentally, rail line in general is expensive to maintain no matter where it is. I am not saying it is not worthwhile, but it is definitely expensive.

Erm, so Metro North is 50% underground, versus almost 100% underground for LU. Therefore it is clear that Metro North will be much cheaper to maintain then LU.

antoinolachtnai this all started because you claimed that Metro North was going to cost €250 million a year to maintain, based on 5% of the construction cost. Your figure was plainly absurd, you can't calculate maintenance costs based on the building cost.

Your figure would put the maintenance cost of Metro North at more then 3 times the current cost of maintaining LU, a 140 year old, heavy rail, heavily used system. If you apply even a little logic, you can clearly see that your original figure was just wrong. It was a pure guess, nothing more.

The only way to calculate the maintenance costs is to look at similar systems around the world. Now we have only got LU to compare with, a system which is vastly older and more complicated and therefore likely to be much more expensive to maintain then Metro North, but at least it gives us a good upper limit to look at. Therefore it looks clear that the upper limit of the cost will be €80 million per year and likely a lot less.

antoinolachtnai · 01-11-2007 5:21pm

LU is not 100 percent underground or anything like it.

The point is that the costs of maintaining, operating and renewing this thing are vast, and it's not just a once-off cost. The cost of growing the capacity of the system is also significant. You think all this can be covered on an ongoing basis from the farebox, I don't see how that can be possible.

To bring it back to the original discussion, Metro is like Munich's maglev if you ask me. If you believe in it, you will do it and it will eventually pay off although it may require further ongoing investment.

BrianD · 02-11-2007 1:05am

Personally, I don't think you can compare the two systems that detailed in the OP other than the fact they will have the same builder.

The Munich is a dedicated airport express train that is built only to serve airline passengers that wish to travel from the terinus (city centre?) to the airport. Of course the passenger numbers will look small and the fares expensive.

The Dublin line is a commuter line to Swords that happens to serve the airport.

I would view it as like comparing the Heathrow Express to the Picadilly line.

BK wrote:

Just like with the two luas lines not being joined up with are currently only doing half the job with Metro North.

I might be taking you out of context here. While it's desirable that the lines would be linked, I don't really view as a major issue. I have yet to see a report that suggests that users of the green line would be users of the red line as opposed to any modes of transport. Having said that, the meeting of the lines would deposit passengers in the middle of Dublin Bus land and one change to either Connolly or Heuston.

BK wrote:

The red luas line carries over 40,000 people per day (14.6m people per year) as it is.

Can you clarify something for me? Is ths figure based on actual ticket sales or capacity of the schedule if all trams were fully loaded?

antoinolachtnai · 02-11-2007 10:40am

What they might both have in common is that they're projects which are somewhat ovesize and expensive for the immediate requirement. You have to look at a longer term vision, population growth and route extension to see how they might make sense.

markf909 · 02-11-2007 10:48am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What they might both have in common is that they're projects which are somewhat ovesize and expensive for the immediate requirement. You have to look at a longer term vision, population growth and route extension to see how they might make sense.

What exactly do you propose to serve the Airport/Swords corridor then?

bk · 02-11-2007 3:52pm

BrianD wrote:

Can you clarify something for me? Is ths figure based on actual ticket sales or capacity of the schedule if all trams were fully loaded?

The figure comes from presentations given by RPA, so I've no idea what the figure is based on.

However I believe that the maximum capacity is greater then 40,000, so I don't think it is based on maximum capacity. Also the figure they gave for the Green line was something like 38,000, yet the Green line has greater capacity then the red line (more frequent and all 40m long), so it seems to be based on some sort of count of the number of people they are carrying, I assume ticket sales and tag ons.

antoinolachtnai · 05-11-2007 9:07am

markf909 wrote: »

What exactly do you propose to serve the Airport/Swords corridor then?

Bear in mind that I never said that Metro was a bad idea, just that it might be underscale.

I can be expected to be biased, and my interest is declared, but I would say that a well organized, rapid, prioritized bus service (like http://www.swordsexpress.com/) can sort out a lot of problems at the Swords/Airport end. The same sort of solution would help along the M50 corridor which is as relevant to many of the commuters in that area.

munchkin_utd · 27-03-2008 10:27am

Latest news from the papers yesterday just for you folk at home.

The transrapid project is now estimated at a minimum cost of 3 Billion Euros.
NOW!
only a shade under 2 Billion is available from National/ Fereral Government + Rail company + Airport Authorities as they were budgeting according to 2002 cost estimates.

If the 1 Billion gap in costs is not met by Industry (and heck the feckin point of the whole project is to showcase german industry in the hope of future contracts, so the shaggers should cough up a bit more) then its curtains for the whole project.

None of the current stakeholders is prepared to put a single cent more to the project than they are currently offering.
Source: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/deutschland/artikel/873/165402/

In addition, the Munich City Council is having a referendum in a few weeks to OPPOSE the project and the use of city funds via the Airport Authority which they co own with the Bavarian Government.
http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=91788&st=0&start=0

All in all, its looking increasingly doubtful that the thing will get off the ground at all.

Run_to_da_hills · 27-03-2008 11:29am

I doubt if the Maglev would mix up the carriages

munchkin_utd · 27-03-2008 1:33pm

Hot off the presses is the news that the Government in Berlin has scrapped the plan for the Maglev aka. Transrapid for Munich at a meeting this morning in Berlin involving the government and the Head of Siemens.

It seems that National and Local government are now resigned that the thing wont be built, and more importantly are now saying this publicly.

The reason given is the escalation of cost from 1.85 billion to a minimum official estimate now of 3.2 to 3.4 billion.

(Obviously, siemens are so enthused with the idea of promoting this project as a showcase of their technology that they arent prepared to step into the breach and bridge the funding gap.)

Source, in german from the Bavarian public broadcaster:
http://www.br-online.de/aktuell/bayern-aktuell/transrapid-in-muenchen-DID1204797267839/transrapid-aktuell-volksbegehren-ID671202493769222045.xml

Headline there is "Transrapid is Dead" by the way.

Its not really a surprise as the government was only ever pepared to enter into a fixed price contract with industry for not a cent more than the 1.85 bilion and there was no indications that anyone was prepared to build it on these conditions in the first place.

Maglev approved for Munich

Comments