Why will Metro North be light rail?

bk

Igy wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for the theory behind the Silver Line in Boston
(Electric buses in segregated tunnels for part of the journey, which switch to standard petrol/diesel engines for normal street running)
It's lower capacity than light rail, but in theory has a lwoer infrastructure cost, as tunnels are only built where needed, and the existing road infrastucture can be used where it won't adversely affect the speed of the journey

I've used it and it is certainly nice, but I don't think it would be suitable for the Metro North route, perhaps some other routes.

Transport21 Fan

I always find the Silver Line in Boston to be painfully slow. Logan Airport compared to Dublin Airport is practically in the city centre anyways. I would suspect that the Metro North journey into Stephen's Green would take about the same time as the Boston Silver Line from Logan to Park Street as well as serve more communitites along the way.

The Silver Line is also a product of the Big Dig. The chance to do something like that for Dublin would most likely have been in the south docklands. But we got Luas and Docklands station which is better than a bus pretending to be a train.

Another thing I found about the Silver Line in Boston is that the frequency is pretty poor considering, and most of the buses are half empty whenever I take them. Given the choice most people take cabs to Logan. Silverline not a network either - just a feeder system to an already well establish and comprehensive urban/suburban rail system in Boston. Something Dublin does not have yet. Building a silver line from Dublin to the city centre would be self-defeating and pointless.

People always want Trains, Metro and Trams over buses and always will. Buses are the commuters choice of last resort. We should be reducing the number of buses in Dublin city as the rail plans unfold and expanding the bus services in outlying GDR in tandem with this. The day of An Larism is coming to an end. Metro, DART, Arrow and Luas are the future. Deal with it.

markpb

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

The day of An Larism is coming to an end. Metro, DART, Arrow and Luas are the future. Deal with it.

The Metro, Arrow and Luas services all terminate in the city centre and the Dart runs through the city centre. Surely they could all be accused of An Larism too or would that spoil your little metaphor?

Even after T21, buses will play a big roll in serving Dublin's transport network (just like they do in other cities) and that's assuming T21 actually happens which is something I wouldn't bet the farm on right now.

Transport21 Fan

bk wrote: »

So calling the Metro a Luas is really silly IMO, as they have quiet different characteristics.

Considering that the 2 unconnected Luas lines in Dublin are coming near to carrying the total numbers of passengers on the entire Irish Rail Inter City, DART and Suburban Rail networks combined, shows that the frequency of Luas is its real advantage. Metro will carry SIX times as many people. If that's not money well spent then I do not know what is.

But 2015 nearly twice as many Irish people should be using Metro and Luas than the entire Irish Rail network and that includes the Interconnector. This will also include IE passengers being delivered customers from the Luas and Metro network.

If some people cannot see the capacity of light rail and metros then they are just wearing blinkers. The whole thing is symbiotic, and Metro North is one linchpin and the Interconnector the other. Everybody wins. Even Dublin Bus/BE who will have less congestion to deal with.

Transport21 Fan

markpb wrote: »

The Metro, Arrow and Luas services all terminate in the city centre and the Dart runs through the city centre. Surely they could all be accused of An Larism too or would that spoil your little metaphor?

You are correct of course, I was talking about An Larism in a BAC sense. That stuff has to end. It causes more congestion than it solves. BAC An Larism is optional and they can easily deal with it.

Buses will have to learn to be feeders and connecting services and this seems to be already happening. Most new routes tend to be cross-town services with some kind of rail connection so it all happening anyways.

murphaph

If the T21 plans for Dublin come to fruition, then buses should become even more important than today-as feeders into the rail system where a rail corridor exists and as the primary radial mode where a rail corridor does not exist. Even post T21 we are decades away for rail-based public transport saturation levels. I would question the need to go this far anyway-a fully integrated complimentary system using all modes is the way ahead for this city.

Winters

How the ultimate stated Metro North 20K passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) capacity is achieved:

Each Metro North vehicle will be, at its longest, 90m long carrying 670 passengers.

Shortest headway we are told is 2 mins per direction = 30 trams per hour.

670*30=20,100.

(A possible 1.5 min headway could achieve 670*40=25,600 pphpd)


The service will more than likely start with 4 min headways and 50 m or 60 m trams in 2013/2014 and ramp up thereafter according to demand.

Source: Independant Drumcondra Route Options Review.



Metro West stops are going to take 50 m trams at the start at 4 min minimum headways which could give 358*15=5,370 pphpd.

Id imagine that if it increased to 90 m trams like Metro North and even 3 min headways than it could take 13,400 pphpd.

Does that answer your question?

bk

Winters wrote: »

Each Metro North vehicle will be, at its longest, 90m long carrying 670 passengers.

.....

Metro West stops are going to take 50 m trams at the start at 4 min minimum headways which could give 358*15=5,370 pphpd.

I'm curious where you got these figures from. The current 40m Luas trams have a capacity of 358 passengers. So surely the 50m Metros would have a capacity of 447 and 90m 805?

Or am I missing something?

strassenwolf

Perhaps they are taking into account that there will be a lot more suitcases travelling on this particular line than would be normal on the LUAS?

Winters

The system will be designed to carry 20,000 passengers per hour each way between
Lissenhall and St.Stephens Green. There will be a service headway of 2 minutes. Each
vehicle will be 90m long carrying 670 passengers

Source: Independant Drumcondra Route Options Review

Thats for Metro North, for Metro West I think I meant to say 40m trams instead (Sorry) because a figure hasnt been given for 50m trams.

Q. How big are the stops likely to be?
A. The stops will initially be approximately 60 metres long but will be designed such that they can be extended to up to 100m. Each platform will be approximately 3 metres wide, just like Luas.

Q. How many people can Metro West carry?
A. Initially Metro West will be designed to carry similar volumes of passengers as Luas. (up to circa 5,000 ppdph). It will however be designed to allow an upgrade in capacity as required and Metro West will ultimately have a carrying capacity of over 10,000 passengers per direction, per hour

Source: rpa.ie

Metro West will have 60m platforms (10m of which are ramps), you could pro-rata it I suppose, if you wish. Nevertheless the thread is about Metro North.

Prof_V

The figures I have for Luas capacity (from the Irish Railway Record Society's booklet on Luas) are 56 seated and 198 standing for a 30m vehicle, 80 and 276 for 40m. However, the 1998 Atkins report quotes 270 at 4 per square metre for a 40m vehicle, so the IRRS figures must be 6 per square metre.

Assuming a 90m Metro vehicle to be just a Luas tram stretched by adding 10m extension modules, you get 866 at 6 per square metre or 644 at 4 per square metre. A 50m tram, on similar assumptions, comes out at 458 or 340, respectively.

I'd say the reason for the "light rail" moniker is track gauge. And the reason for that is most likely for easier rolling stock availability. The problem CIÉ have with heavy rail lines here is that when ordering new rolling stock/locomotives/railcars they need to conform to a non-standard gauge of 5'3" (1600mm) rather than the standard 4'8½" (1435mm) used in most parts of the world.

There were considerations to lease some BR Class 222 units a few years back but these were shelved - I'd say the resulting gauge mods would have been part of the problem, but it would have given us 125mph capable trains if it had went ahead. The DART also uses a non standard electrical system which makes things even more difficult. So by building the line to standard gauge a standard design can be used with little or no modification.

BrianD

Karsini wrote: »

I'd say the reason for the "light rail" moniker is track gauge. And the reason for that is most likely for easier rolling stock availability. The problem CIÉ have with heavy rail lines here is that when ordering new rolling stock/locomotives/railcars they need to conform to a non-standard gauge of 5'3" (1600mm) rather than the standard 4'8½" (1435mm) used in most parts of the world.

There were considerations to lease some BR Class 222 units a few years back but these were shelved - I'd say the resulting gauge mods would have been part of the problem, but it would have given us 125mph capable trains if it had went ahead. The DART also uses a non standard electrical system which makes things even more difficult. So by building the line to standard gauge a standard design can be used with little or no modification.

It's already been discussed here. The IR rail guage is not an issue. Irish Rail have been able to source new trains from around the world - Japan, Korea, Spain, Germany ... The Enterprise units are supposed to be the same as the Eurorail units etc. I doubt if there is such a thing as "off the shelf" trains, all trains will be built to order so anything the buyer wants can be incorporated.

I wasn't aware that DART used a non-standard elctrical system but if there is, it is the standard in this country and there seems to be no problem in getting the three types of DART train sets to work on it and in tandem with each other.

BrianD

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

Considering that the 2 unconnected Luas lines in Dublin are coming near to carrying the total numbers of passengers on the entire Irish Rail Inter City, DART and Suburban Rail networks combined, shows that the frequency of Luas is its real advantage. Metro will carry SIX times as many people. If that's not money well spent then I do not know what is.

But 2015 nearly twice as many Irish people should be using Metro and Luas than the entire Irish Rail network and that includes the Interconnector. This will also include IE passengers being delivered customers from the Luas and Metro network.

If some people cannot see the capacity of light rail and metros then they are just wearing blinkers. The whole thing is symbiotic, and Metro North is one linchpin and the Interconnector the other. Everybody wins. Even Dublin Bus/BE who will have less congestion to deal with.

You should go into politics ... you have a great expertese in massaging figures.

The fact of the matter the Government never built or invested in the DART as they should have. Leaving aside the malaise that may exist in IR the DART is operating on legacy equipment and signalling. There is absolutely no doubt that we need an authority that should be upping the ante on existing infrastructure. On one hand the Gov wants the RPA to build shiny new lines but on the otherhand we have nobody that says we need that one upgraded to this standard and capacity.

Again you seem to be more interested in dealing with RPA v CIE issues (yawn, yawn yawn) then accepting that the RPA are getting it wrong in regarding the Metro.

BrianD

bk wrote:

I did read your post, but I didn't understand what you are proposing and frankly I still don't understand what you are proposing?

Are you proposing a heavy rail line be run underground from the interconnector at Stephens Green, along much the same route as the Metro out to as far as Swords?

Would it have the same stations along the way as Metro?

Please give more detail as to what you exactly you are proposing?

Aha! You did understand my posting then. I personally believe that for this line, heavy rail is the way foward. I wouldn't entirely agree with the current metro routing either but I gather that there is probably some movement there.

Igy wrote:

There's a lot to be said for the theory behind the Silver Line in Boston
(Electric buses in segregated tunnels for part of the journey, which switch to standard petrol/diesel engines for normal street running)
It's lower capacity than light rail, but in theory has a lwoer infrastructure cost, as tunnels are only built where needed, and the existing road infrastucture can be used where it won't adversely affect the speed of the journey

I have used it and I wouldn't be a great fan. I got the impression that it was a project that may have run out of funding. Enough money to build some of the infrastructure but not enough to put trains into it. Would I be correct in saying that it is upgradable in the future?

markpb

BrianD wrote: »

Aha! You did understand my posting then. I personally believe that for this line, heavy rail is the way foward. I wouldn't entirely agree with the current metro routing either but I gather that there is probably some movement there.

Maybe he did but I still don't. You said:

It would make sense if there was a line running from Swords, serving the airport and into the city. Linking with the interconnector would make also sense.

Isn't what you and the RPA are suggesting absolutely identical except one is HRT and the other is LRT? They both run from Swords to the Green / Interconnector via the airport. You keep putting down the metro without explaining your reasons. Apart from LRT, why don't you like it? What route would you prefer? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious what your reasons are.

Oh and for the uninformed, what's the difference between LRT and HRT or is it just capacity?

Transport21 Fan

BrianD wrote: »

It's already been discussed here. The IR rail guage is not an issue. Irish Rail have been able to source new trains from around the world - Japan, Korea, Spain, Germany ... The Enterprise units are supposed to be the same as the Eurorail units etc.

Gauge is becoming a issue for IE as the major industry players are developing more modular rail technology, Seimiens, Toshiba etc. When it comes time for IE to order their next batch of locos it's going to be really tricky. The last batch the 201's are too heavy for some of the Irish Rail network as this beast was all they could get at the time which could be converted to Irish gauge.

Gauge was an issue in the past and will be more so in the future. Hence why no tilting trains and so on IE and no hope for them. As the technology becomes more standardised and technical, Irish Rail will sadly find it more and more difficult to get these new generation of trains. Nothing they can do about it really.

BrianD wrote: »

I doubt if there is such a thing as "off the shelf" trains, all trains will be built to order so anything the buyer wants can be incorporated.

Yes there is.

This is another huge advantage Luas and in future Metro will have over Irish Rail. The Luas Citadis 'off the shelf' units are in operation in cities all over the world. They are constantly being improved, spare parts are easy to get. Look how quickly the 10M sections were ordered as soon as the RPA had the money. They were literally taken 'off the shelf' at the Asltrom warehouse wrapped in bubble-wrap and sent to Dublin.

The Luas is a perfect example of an "off the shelf" rail system, while Irish Rail is and always will be a railway idiosyncratic oddity having to make-do. They have always had trouble sourcing tenders for train orders. It's always going to be a major problem for IE to aquire rolling stock and one day in this country we are going to have to wake up to the fact that only a new standard gauge high speed line connecting Belfast-Dublin-Cork using "off the shelf" equipment is the only way Ireland will ever get modern inter-city rail services. The Spanish and the Portuguese have this already figured out.

Ireland will always have a world class Light Rail and Metro system and sub-standard heavy rail system because of the gauge. Inchicore are doomed to this historical legacy. Just a fact of life and in the past they did well to make do, but in the future as production of railway rolling stock becomes more standardised and modular, Irish Rail may have to return to being the chop-shop they were in the 1980's and 90's in order to keep the show on the road. I suspect that Berry's scrapyard hasn't heard the last from Inchicore looking for a bit oul gear they can reguage.

In 2020 I can see it now, former HST unit from West Coast Main Line with Irish bogies... Don't say it won't happen either.

RIP IT UP AND START AGAIN!

bk

BrianD wrote: »

Aha! You did understand my posting then. I personally believe that for this line, heavy rail is the way foward. I wouldn't entirely agree with the current metro routing either but I gather that there is probably some movement there.

I originally didn't get it, there has only ever been three serious proposals put forward, the original crappy cheap Metro, the current good Metro and a heavy rail spur off the Northern line.

It was the last that I thought you were originally talking about and I think we can both agree that it is a very bad option.

You idea of heavy rail on the Metro route is interesting and worth discussing.

The advantage is it would allow about an extra 200 - 300 passengers per train, but I'm not really sure the extra capacity is required?

Metro can do 24,000 per hour per direction, which is 6 times the Luas, seems to be more then sufficient (FYI, Swords has a population of 34,000).

The disadvantage is that it would probably cost about an extra billion euros (due to more complicated signalling, electrics and cost of carriages).

It couldn't integrate with the Luas Green line and would unfortunately be run by CIE (yes I know yawn, but it is an important point for me and seemingly many others).

Also Transport21 Fan points about standardised Metro equipment versus no standard Dart equipment makes a lot of sense to me.

The RPA certainly seemed to very quickly buy and add the extra 10m to the existing trams, it seemed to be a very painless process. On the other hand, IR can't even seem to get 20 Dart carriages refurbished, taking over two years.

If IR needed to buy new Dart carriages tomorrow (which they really do), while they certainly could make a special order, it would probably take very long to complete and probably cost twice as much as standard equipment. I really get the impression that if the RPA needed to do the same, they could get them very quickly.

It is not an unimportant point. I just don't see that much advantage to using heavy rail in the tunnel versus lightrail.

Is dual gauge 1435/1600mm track possible? Or are they too close?

Transport21 Fan

Dual gauge is technically possible but legally not in this country for loads of reason and all of them sound.

This kind of 'CIE or Bust' crusade still going on was sorted out years ago when the Luas was taken out of the hand of the CIE Light Rail Office (Blessing Upon They Who Decided This) and turned it over the RPA. From what I recall the Government at the time had to literally force the CIE heads to put tracks on the Harcourt Street line - they wanted a busway.

Still going on about Luas/Metro not standard gauge in 2007 is like some wishful thinking to go back to the CIE Monopoly of the past and try and fix something which has worked out to be fantastic. It's rooted in this notion that the Luas was a failure and should of been a CIE train driven by a bloke called Anto who got the job cos' his old man was a CIE train driver too.

The very idea of even remotely trying to put across the idea that Luas is a failure is really odd to me. The two Luas lines are carrying numbers of passengers which CIE took decades to achieved. The answer for this is simple. The Luas is excellent considering the limitations imposed upon it by Cowardly Bertie and Co. In fact, it's the greatest piece of public transport in the history of the state.

Best of all the Metro will be even superior to that. So what's the problem? If anything is the RPA which should reform Irish Rail and not the other way around.

I know there are a some soviet-wannabe headbangers, CIE union extremists and a fair few "gay for CIE" types on this board, but at some point they are all going to have to accept that the millions of people who use the Luas every year are there for modern service which CIE has never and still does not offer its passengers.

It's a different world now and CIE are no longer holding all the cards and the vast majority of Irish people are happy with this.

Ham'nd'egger

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

Dual gauge is technically possible but legally not in this country for loads of reason and all of them sound.

This kind of 'CIE or Bust' crusade still going on was sorted out years ago when the Luas was taken out of the hand of the CIE Light Rail Office (Blessing Upon They Who Decided This) and turned it over the RPA. From what I recall the Government at the time had to literally force the CIE heads to put tracks on the Harcourt Street line - they wanted a busway.

Still going on about Luas/Metro not standard gauge in 2007 is like some wishful thinking to go back to the CIE Monopoly of the past and try and fix something which has worked out to be fantastic. It's rooted in this notion that the Luas was a failure and should of been a CIE train driven by a bloke called Anto who got the job cos' his old man was a CIE train driver too.

The very idea of even remotely trying to put across the idea that Luas is a failure is really odd to me. The two Luas lines are carrying numbers of passengers which CIE took decades to achieved. The answer for this is simple. The Luas is excellent considering the limitations imposed upon it by Cowardly Bertie and Co. In fact, it's the greatest piece of public transport in the history of the state.

Best of all the Metro will be even superior to that. So what's the problem? If anything is the RPA which should reform Irish Rail and not the other way around.

I know there are a some soviet-wannabe headbangers, CIE union extremists and a fair few "gay for CIE" types on this board, but at some point they are all going to have to accept that the millions of people who use the Luas every year are there for modern service which CIE has never and still does not offer its passengers.

It's a different world now and CIE are no longer holding all the cards and the vast majority of Irish people are happy with this.

Actually, I think you will find is that the RPA was formed in order for the State to be seen to open up Transport to private holdings. CIE actually did most of the design work for LUAS and the specs were to CIE's observations and reccomendations save for the gauging. (Close inspection of a LUAS tram will show that the bogie is not streamlined to the body and can be fitted to alternate gauges if need be) RPA were the body who undertook the work and dealt with tendering of same, including the overrunning of budget of same, the faulty trackwork in Tallaght, the 2 year late roll out and the lack of connection. I am privvy as to the reason why they didn't meet, lets just say there would have been, ahem, "budget issues" if it had have gone the way it was planned to

Transport21 Fan

Hamndegger wrote: »

RPA were the body who undertook the work and dealt with tendering of same, including the overrunning of budget of same, the faulty trackwork in Tallaght, the 2 year late roll out and the lack of connection. I am privvy as to the reason why they didn't meet, lets just say there would have been, ahem, "budget issues" if it had have gone the way it was planned to

Yes this happened, but the end result was the most successful and popular public transport machine in the history of the state. All the above would mean something if Luas flopped.

I love to know how much CIE have wasted over the years and cock-ups they have made. I am sure the cost to taxpayers in strikes alone would cover it. The mini-CTC farce...?

The CIE bus drivers and conductors almost destroyed the commercial heart of the city centre of Dublin with one mother of a strike in the early 1970's which the city took decades to recover from.

Let Anto and Deco cast the first stone...:D

Ham'nd'egger

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

Yes this happened, but the end result was the most successful and popular public transport machine in the history of the state. All the above would mean something if Luas flopped.

I love to know how much CIE have wasted over the years and cock-ups they have made. I am sure the cost to taxpayers in strikes alone would cover it. The mini-CTC farce...?

The CIE bus drivers and conductors almost destroyed the commercial heart of the city centre of Dublin with one mother of a strike in the early 1970's which the city took decades to recover from.

Let Anto and Deco cast the first stone...:D

LUAS happened, but you seem to have neglected to comment on the fact that CIE didn't do the building and it overran budget and timeframe; I don't think anybody here doubts that it is doing well. You can rest assured however, that Veoila, First, Stagecoach etc would not have even looked at LUAS were it not ready to go for them; it was even branded for them FFS that is how walk on it was for them. Anybody allowed to tender could have got the tender to run it.

What is this mini CTC "farce" you refer to? And what were the reasons for the bus strike in the 1970s? Details, please... factual ones and not opines.:rolleyes:

BrianD

bk wrote: »

I originally didn't get it, there has only ever been three serious proposals put forward, the original crappy cheap Metro, the current good Metro and a heavy rail spur off the Northern line.

It was the last that I thought you were originally talking about and I think we can both agree that it is a very bad option.

You idea of heavy rail on the Metro route is interesting and worth discussing.

The advantage is it would allow about an extra 200 - 300 passengers per train, but I'm not really sure the extra capacity is required?

Metro can do 24,000 per hour per direction, which is 6 times the Luas, seems to be more then sufficient (FYI, Swords has a population of 34,000).

The disadvantage is that it would probably cost about an extra billion euros (due to more complicated signalling, electrics and cost of carriages).

It couldn't integrate with the Luas Green line and would unfortunately be run by CIE (yes I know yawn, but it is an important point for me and seemingly many others).

Also Transport21 Fan points about standardised Metro equipment versus no standard Dart equipment makes a lot of sense to me.

The RPA certainly seemed to very quickly buy and add the extra 10m to the existing trams, it seemed to be a very painless process. On the other hand, IR can't even seem to get 20 Dart carriages refurbished, taking over two years.

If IR needed to buy new Dart carriages tomorrow (which they really do), while they certainly could make a special order, it would probably take very long to complete and probably cost twice as much as standard equipment. I really get the impression that if the RPA needed to do the same, they could get them very quickly.

It is not an unimportant point. I just don't see that much advantage to using heavy rail in the tunnel versus lightrail.

I don't get your point about standard equipment. DART trains are in use elsewhere in the world (perhaps not the original units that I am aware of). The DART is the standard in this country so a new line would be integrating with the standard. The LUAS units in service now are entirely custom built for Ireland - they may well be based on a standard chassis - but they are built to order and to the RPA spec. Same with DART units.

Green Line integration - we all know that this can happen in theory but in reality this is never going to happen.

CIE v RPA - Yawn, yawn, yawn. the fact of the matter is that CIE have upped their game substantially in the past decade. Yes they have issues that have been discussed them at length. This is where the notion of the RPA falls over - it would be better if we had one agency responsible for planning and tendering out all new rail lines. If IR need a new line they go to the RPA who tender it and build it and hand it over. I would be very Dubious about saying that the LUAS operator is somehow better than CIE as it is difficult to compare. In any case, why not tender out new lines to other operators as a matter of course? At the end of the day, the planning of infrastructure can not be done on the basis of who will run it in the future.


BTW I don't think that sticking in 10m sections into LUAS trams is even remotely comparable to refurbishing the original DART carriages!!

the Heavy rail option to swords (as a new line) may well work out more expensive but would be worth it the long run as, in conjunction with other upgrades, a good quality DART (metro) system in the Dublin area. let the trams fill in the gaps between the rail lines.

BrianD

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

Yes this happened, but the end result was the most successful and popular public transport machine in the history of the state. All the above would mean something if Luas flopped.

I love to know how much CIE have wasted over the years and cock-ups they have made. I am sure the cost to taxpayers in strikes alone would cover it. The mini-CTC farce...?

The CIE bus drivers and conductors almost destroyed the commercial heart of the city centre of Dublin with one mother of a strike in the early 1970's which the city took decades to recover from.

Let Anto and Deco cast the first stone...:D

T21 - the LUAS was always a no brainer. Of course it was going to be a success irrespective of who ran it. In any case, I would disagree. The most successful public transport project in the state has been the DART. May not be popular, may be late but still the project with the most impact.

One thing that I do find ambiguous about the RPA/Veoila agreement is who is responsible for what - infrastructure, vehicle mainintinace etc. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on this.

Transport21 Fan

Hamndegger wrote: »

What is this mini CTC "farce" you refer to?

Ah now, you are just messing.

Hamndegger wrote: »

And what were the reasons for the bus strike in the 1970s?

The removal of conductors from double deckers. At the time CIE was the only public transport operator in the city and the strike was a disaster for the city centre. It lasted something like 3 months, led to dozens of shops closing and hundreds of lay-offs. CIE unions were doing to the centre of Dublin at the time using "industrial unrest" what the IRA were doing to Belfast with sextex. Destroying the commercial heart for an undemocratic agenda.

Rather than rolling your eyes, I suggest you ask the people who had to try and find an army truck to take them to work and back when there was one during them halcyon days of CIE broken wheel (was an apt logo) yore...:D

It was still going on right into the early 1980's when the conductors issue was still a big deal.

CIE bus conductors were mostly a shower of robbers and theives anyways. Many of them were robbing the company blind by charging a lower fair and putting the "dropsie" in their pockets. This is why they were gotten rid of. They and the bus drivers would head to the CIE club at the end of the shift and count their dropsie coppers and get a few extra discounted pints. Jobs and free pints for life thanks to several forms of taxation - both statutory and improvised.

You see, there is the enthusiast history of public transport in Ireland were "great characters" shunted the wagons at the North Wall in their "salt of the earth" ways, but there is a far more earthly CIE employee history which drove public transport users away in their millions. I would say the most hated people in Dublin during the 1970's and 80's were CIE staff. There was a very valid reason for this.

The IRRS journal is not the last word in Irish public transport old chap, not by a long shot. There is a far more unpleasant and more real history which only the poor bastards who had to depend on the NBRU to get to work and make a living know about. One of the more terrible strikes on the early 1980's led to armies of people walking from West Tallahgt to their jobs in the city centre during the harsh winter months. While the usual Liberty Hall bearded mullahs were on the news every night talking about how "working people in this country deserve better conditions"

Well a certain type of "working person" that is...

Winters

armada104 wrote: »

I appreciate that this question may seem a stupid one, but I've never seen it answered anywhere, so I'm just gonna go ahead and ask. As far as I can see, most of the €5bn+ price tag for Metro North will come from boring tunnels, building elevated sections and building stations. Surely then making the tunnels a little wider would cause only a negligible price increase. Or is it heavy rolling stock that's more expensive?

Please excuse my ignorance, but I just can't see where the major savings are coming from, if at all.

Do you regard 'Light Rail' as on-street running with 4 to 5 min frequencies? If you do then Metro North* will not be 'Light Rail'.

While heavier systems have wider carriages, higher platform heights and thus a higher person per square area capacity, in the RPAs efforts to maintain a high capacity, fully accessible and modern system while keeping the high costs associated with heavy metropolitan systems down and one that can integrate with the Luas I believe they have come up with the best answer.

Metro North will be:

Highly segretated (Fully segretated between Airport and SSG);
High frequency (2min to 90 sec headway enabled);
High capacity (20K to 26K pphpd);
Fully accessible; and
Shared track running with Luas.

What more do you want?

*The argument to call Metro West Luas is another thread altogether!

Ham'nd'egger

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

Ah now, you are just messing.



The removal of conductors from double deckers. At the time CIE was the only public transport operator in the city and the strike was a disaster for the city centre. It lasted something like 3 months, led to dozens of shops closing and hundreds of lay-offs. CIE unions were doing to the centre of Dublin at the time using "industrial unrest" what the IRA were doing to Belfast with sextex. Destroying the commercial heart for an undemocratic agenda.

Rather than rolling your eyes, I suggest you ask the people who had to try and find an army truck to take them to work and back when there was one during them halcyon days of CIE broken wheel (was an apt logo) yore...:D

It was still going on right into the early 1980's when the conductors issue was still a big deal.

CIE bus conductors were mostly a shower of robbers and theives anyways. Many of them were robbing the company blind by charging a lower fair and putting the "dropsie" in their pockets. This is why they were gotten rid of. They and the bus drivers would head to the CIE club at the end of the shift and count their dropsie coppers and get a few extra discounted pints. Jobs and free pints for life thanks to several forms of taxation - both statutory and improvised.

You see, there is the enthusiast history of public transport in Ireland were "great characters" shunted the wagons at the North Wall in their "salt of the earth" ways, but there is a far more earthly CIE employee history which drove public transport users away in their millions. I would say the most hated people in Dublin during the 1970's and 80's were CIE staff. There was a very valid reason for this.

The IRRS journal is not the last word in Irish public transport old chap, not by a long shot. There is a far more unpleasant and more real history which only the poor bastards who had to depend on the NBRU to get to work and make a living know about. One of the more terrible strikes on the early 1980's led to armies of people walking from West Tallahgt to their jobs in the city centre during the harsh winter months. While the usual Liberty Hall bearded mullahs were on the news every night talking about how "working people in this country deserve better conditions"

Well a certain type of "working person" that is...

Ah yes, more misinformation from your good self.

You evidentally come from the Thatcher School of HR management, some of the ****e you come out with.

Given that in the 1970's, there was probably 1000 bus conductors on the road who were looking to lose their jobs, along with drivers taking on the added roles of handling cash etc, I can't really say I blame them in striking, it was a big deal for them. Sure, a strike creates hardship but such is the nature of the beast, NEWSFLASH A strike is meant to create hardship on people to highligh issues that affect workers detrimentally! I assume that you expect strikers to work a shift and man a picket in ther spare time, handing out sweets and balllons to the kids and soup to the elderly:p

The real thing that made the role of a conductor redundant was the rear engined bus as it revolutionised bus designs and made a safe bus to board from the front, while cutting down on staff levels. I can't wait for some of the busmen on here to see your charges of bus staff pinching money ad nausem (Cal or Vic, is that a far charge to post on here? It sounds potentially libellous).

paulm17781

Hamndegger wrote: »

NEWSFLASH A strike is meant to create hardship on people to highligh issues that affect workers detrimentally!

Yes, but when it is a sub company of CIE, it affects the public, the people who depend on them. When CIE unions strike, I don't think "well now I'm on their side." I hope they get fired. This is how it affects the average person's mindset.

Winters

This thread is about Light Rail and Metro North is it not?