Story on Morning Ireland says Metro North is postponed

murphaph

BluntGuy wrote: »

Metro North is an adequate solution. But it needs to be future-proofed. They must make sure that an upgrade to a heavy-rail guage is possible at a later date. Sadly I e-mailed someone on the matter and they said it wouldn't be possible.

I personally think we should've gone for heavy-rail. YES it does add to the expense. But the burden of the project's expense is carried by the tunnelling costs. The smaller light-rail carriages don't save us an amazing amount in comparison to the overall cost of the project.

I think you're missing the advantages of light rail vehicles over heavy rail. In our city, we already have 2 long light rail lines which for the most part are highly segregated. Even the red line is mostly off street and it is only between Fatima and Connolly that it's total rubbish. To take maximum advantage of this existing infrastructure the RPA have decided to keep metro north the same. This decision may not bear fruit for years or ecen decades, but I believe the RPA will ultimately look to tunnel the green line to tie into metro north and quite possibly to tunnel the red line from just east of Fatima to do likewise. In this context we can see the massive advantage of keeping everything light rail-and that's not even mentioning metro west (which is of course more luas than metro).

I believe that on a practical level passengers will have a better experience on the light rail metro north than they would have on a heavy rail equivalent simply because in the outer surface stops, crossing from one side to the other will be much easier, particularly for mobility impaired folks. The only possible disadvantage to passengers is a slight reduction in floor space with the light rail vehicles but clever internal layouts can mitigate against this. Capacity wise this 90m light rail vehicle will be well up to the task.

BluntGuy wrote: »

As for Metro West. Haven't heard any news on that lately, but it's looking like an utter disaster before it's even built. It should just be a third luas line judging by the way they're planning to construct it.

Indeed, it looks like a halfway house. Some talk on RUI suggests a bit more segregation than the 'good' bit if the red line, but nowhere near the segregation of the green line. I think it would make a bit more sense to build a high quality fully segregated light rail (same as metro north) just from the Airport to Porterstown and work south as funds permit (as most metros develop around the world really).

BluntGuy

murphaph wrote: »

I think you're missing the advantages of light rail vehicles over heavy rail. In our city, we already have 2 long light rail lines which for the most part are highly segregated. Even the red line is mostly off street and it is only between Fatima and Connolly that it's total rubbish. To take maximum advantage of this existing infrastructure the RPA have decided to keep metro north the same. This decision may not bear fruit for years or ecen decades, but I believe the RPA will ultimately look to tunnel the green line to tie into metro north and quite possibly to tunnel the red line from just east of Fatima to do likewise. In this context we can see the massive advantage of keeping everything light rail-and that's not even mentioning metro west (which is of course more luas than metro).

I believe that on a practical level passengers will have a better experience on the light rail metro north than they would have on a heavy rail equivalent simply because in the outer surface stops, crossing from one side to the other will be much easier, particularly for mobility impaired folks. The only possible disadvantage to passengers is a slight reduction in floor space with the light rail vehicles but clever internal layouts can mitigate against this. Capacity wise this 90m light rail vehicle will be well up to the task.

There is no denying that light-metro does have an accessibility factor and there is less of danger of falling onto tracks during boarding etc. Indeed, it has been nothing less than a success in Portugal. BUT Portugal has six well developed lines. This Metro North is only ONE line. And judging by its (rather well placed) location, I'd estimate that many, many people will want to use it. I just don't want to see a situation where it's overcrowded within the space of less than ten years.

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, it looks like a halfway house. Some talk on RUI suggests a bit more segregation than the 'good' bit if the red line, but nowhere near the segregation of the green line. I think it would make a bit more sense to build a high quality fully segregated light rail (same as metro north) just from the Airport to Porterstown and work south as funds permit (as most metros develop around the world really).

Yes I think you're right.

As it is, Metro West is an embarassing prospect. A metro implies full segregation. If they want to build a third luas line, they should just admit it, and not build the line under the guise of metro.

If we were to exercise patience with Metro West rather than rushing in and delivering a sub-standard service, we might have it almost as well-segregated as Metro North.

gjim

I'm starting to come around to the belief that light rail is the future for all NEW commuter lines. It's cheaper, simpler and more flexible.

Engineering an electrified heavy rail commuter line seems massively more difficult and expensive; the trackbed, the tolerances, working with the constraints in terms of gradients and bends, the complex control and signalling systems, the heavier electrical power demands and the more complex station buildings, barriers and expensive rolling stock. Look at the estimates for the Navan rail line that are floating around.

Contrast this with barrierless light rail: can use relatively shallow trackbed, handle greater gradients and tighter bends, uses trivial signalling/control, simpler and lighter overhead wiring, simple stations and cheaper rolling stock. Of course increasing the segregation increases the cost but it's possible to achieve much better segregation for much less expense.

And yet the differences in capacity and speeds are not all that significant assuming the light rail segregation isn't compromised too much.

I'm starting to thing it's a bit like the move from monolithic mainframe computing to having multiple smaller, simpler and cheaper computers. It's the KISS principle.

spacetweek

Sponge Bob wrote: »

1. The public fiscal situation has deteriorated even more than it had earlier this year when Finance started looking at T21 cutbacks.

MN doesn't need money until 2013 when it opens. Interconnector isn't starting until 2010. The fiscal situation will recover by then. We didn't default on our national debt here.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2. The Dept of Finance will not tolerate 2 contractors building a station in St Stephens Green at the same time . The potential for cost overruns and for costly litigation is far too great .

Even if this is true (which it isn't), you'd still be fine. MN is finishing in 2013, IC in 2015. Start both, wait for MN to finish in 2013, then start Stephen's Green Interconnector station and you'd still be finished in time for 2015.
But as Cool Mo D correctly pointed out, it isn't true.

BluntGuy

St.Stephen's Green is supposed to be an intergrated design for both metro and interconnector, right?

Well it makes more sense to manufacture both the metro and interconnector chunks of the station at once, rather than building one section and then having to return later and build the other.

astrofool

BluntGuy wrote: »

St.Stephen's Green is supposed to be an intergrated design for both metro and interconnector, right?

Well it makes more sense to manufacture both the metro and interconnector chunks of the station at once, rather than building one section and then having to return later and build the other.

They'll probably build it with that in mind, but it would be very difficult to time both to be built at once, given that plans and measurements of both lines will change once they start cutting/boring the tunnels and have to adapt to what they find down there.

I'd guess they will build all the linking tunnels in the right place, and make sure electrics/plumbing are going the right way.

murphaph

Exactly, according to IE, the RPA will have the responsibility of building all common areas, which presumably includes ticket barriers, escalators, lifts, ventilation and heavy plant like that as well as fitting out all common areas with whatever decoration they opt for. The bit IE will be left constructing will in reality be very little-just laying track through the track troughs and fitting out the low level station (ie, painting and decorating!).