Luas B1 Tenders

Victor

http://www.rpa.ie/rpa/procurement_tenders/tenders

Tenders

Click here to view Tenders on the eTenders Website.

Line B1 Tender List
Luas line B1 – Sandyford Industrial Estate to Cherrywood

B1_100 – Highway and Utility Works
The following candidates will be invited to tender for this contract:

Laing O'Rourke
SMC Group
SIAC Construction Ltd
Clonmel Enterprises Ltd.
Sierra Communications Ltd.
Gerry McCloskey (IRE) Ltd.
B1_300 – Structures
The following candidates will be invited to tender for this contract:

Laing O'Rourke Civil Engineering Ltd.
SIAC Construction Ltd.
Ascon Ltd.
PJ Hegarty & Sons Ltd.
John Mowlem Construction Ltd.
B1_400 - Infrastructure
The following candidates will be invited to tender for this contract:

Ansaldo/Mpact JV
Ascon Ltd./Bam Rail JV
SIAC/Alstom JV
SSB Consortium (Somague Engenharia SA, Sacyr S.A.U. and Bowen Construction Ltd)

Red Alert

So is the idea that it's a closed shop?

Given already-made technical decisions (like AVLS equipment, Trackside and DC Plant), Alstom will have to get a contract.

BrianD

I think they call them "qualified applicants". BTW this extension will be the death of the Green Line. At this length and with developers using its existence to justify new development it is not going to meet capacity.

The only extension that should be allowed on the Green line is a branch or spur. This in theory would allow a greater catchement area and still be able to meet demand in the "inner" areas.

The Luas is an admirable transport system, unfortunately the wrong two lines were built.

MarkoP11

I made that argument at the public inquiry that given the current overcrowding on the existing section any extension will result in a serious overcrowding situation

Needless to say the RPA's word was taken as gospel

Slice

I agree completely, as I pointed out in another thread; where the Luas falls down is in the fact that it's a light rail system with line-lengths typical of a metro system. Luas should have been planned as a more extensive network consisting of shorter lines - this would have addressed the capacity issues from the get-go.

The Sandyford line will be even more congested with a completed Metro North terminating at St Stephen's Green. Why the Sandyford line conversion to Metro standard isn't planned for completion at the same time as Metro North is probably down to political expediancy.

Imagine the outcry over RPA short-sightedness if only a few years after opening the Green line it's then closed again to facilitate the upgrade to Metro - yet once the congestion issue becomes more acute when Metro North is completed people will be asking "why wasn't the green line converted to metro when building the airport metro?" That question will be asked further down the line and can be left to a later Government to answer.

CiaranC

Cant they increase the number and frequency of trams to decrease congestion?

spacetweek

Is congestion on the Green Line that bad? I use it every day and haven't noticed much (at least in comparison to the red line) though the times I get it are perhaps not quite peak (7:55 at Stephens Green, 4:50 at Sandyford).

The red line - now that's congested.

Slice

At the busiest peak times there is congestion on trams on the green line yes, but this is limited to around fifteen minute time frames mostly in the morning I think. The point is if there is congestion at the moment imagine what congestion would be like once the Cherrywood extension is complete, along with the completion of the city centre link with the Red line and a Metro feeding into St Stephen's Green.

MarkoP11

Already done that its at 4 minute intervals already, already with the longer trams.

In theory over the base line tram every 5 minutes they can provide a 67% increase in capacity by going to 3 minute intervals but thats when level crossings and on street start to become big risks

The RPA have some jap about 50 m trams but they are not building the platforms for 50m trams

BrianD

Plus the power system will probably not handle more and bigger trams on the line. It's a mess.

MarkoP11

It will take a 40m tram every 2.5 minutes in theory, the original DART spec would take a 6 coach crush loaded train every 3 minutes and still have 100% redundancy

The traffic and road crossings will get it first, Luas is horribly stop start compared to other European tram systems

DerekP11

Mark from P11 made the capacity issue known at the public inquiry. From our viewpoint, it was dismissed and we agree to disagree for now. Once the line is operational, then an accurate assesment can be done. In all fairness, I don't want a comparable repeat of the 30m Vs 40m tram issue that P11 went through. But we're on record and ultimately that makes the difference for future generations, if its cocked up.

"Someone, somewhere said it could be a problem. It is now so hence we may listen more accutely in future."

This "lobbying" thing can be hard work in the present, but should lead to easier work in the future. The difference now is that it goes on public record. If problems arise, then future generations can see that it was pointed out to the "honchos" and they didn't listen. Thats the real power of an organisation such as P11 across the spectrum of rail infrastructure and passenger issues. What we do now, will probably only get recognition in tomorrows history books.

Red Alert

the trams only draw maximum current when accelerating, so power consumption for the most part can be dealt with in terms of Operating Procedures. also once you add in more 'sections' on the overhead line you cut down the problem. a convenient yet baseless excuse for Connex/RPA to avoid more frequency.

MarkoP11

The power demand model is based on simulating trains moving around a replica of the network allowing for station stops and gradients it accounts for the effect of braking and acceleration since it takes the specification and performance into account. 2.5 minutes is the quoted spec on the green Luas line for 40m trams

The whole 50m tram should be seen as a diversion, despite all the hype and promises none of the second batch of Luas lines show 50m capability on the plans, I am aware of no current 50m Alstom tram in service anywhere

Victor

Red Alert wrote:

So is the idea that it's a closed shop?

Not yet. It's usual to reduce a tender list to 4-6 tenderers. Having 19 tenderers, like in the 1980s, just means the lowest bidder is the guy with the most mistakes, which ends up compromising delivery. I heard on one project 'they' had to go back to the fourth lowest guy because the three lowest guys couldn't stand over their tenders.

The real problem is they may base the entire expansion of the system on these tenders.

Given already-made technical decisions (like AVLS equipment, Trackside and DC Plant), Alstom will have to get a contract.

Alstom have a contract for 15 years already. I suspect that proprietary kit will be in the minority of the total cost.

MarkoP11

The overhead system is Brecknell Willis for example not Alstom, the control system came from Ansaldro/Alcatel and the radio is motorola

The original main contractor was Ansaldo/MVM/Ballast Needham

Alstom have a contract to maintain the existing tram fleet