DART+ (DART Expansion)

Grandeeod

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, according to the published information on Metrolink, the proposals include drivers in the cabs of the trains, and the possibility of driverless trains.

Technology has been there for at least a decade, so why even consider drivers? It is so 1950!

Are you for real? And a mod here too?

Your quoted post was in relation to a remark you made about CIE industrial action earlier.

I think they have made certain that the new Metro will be driverless.

Your quote is wildly speculative and to follow it up with the above and a 1950s remark included just comes across as arrogant.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, according to the published information on Metrolink, the proposals include drivers in the cabs of the trains, and the possibility of driverless trains.

Technology has been there for at least a decade, so why even consider drivers? It is so 1950!

My comment was that whether or not driverless trains are used on Metrolink would be down to technological design constraints, and not down to an industrial dispute in a completely different company.

This industrial dispute has not been good, by any means, but to suggest that it’s going to be the major influence in the design of a new metro line is frankly daft.

Bray Head

There will presumably be a business case for driverless and driver-driven trains on the metrolink.

If there is not much between them in financial terms the NTA may well opt for driverless as it would reduce the risk of disruption due to industrial action.

LXFlyer

Bray Head wrote: »

There will presumably be a business case for driverless and driver-driven trains on the metrolink.

If there is not much between them in financial terms the NTA may well opt for driverless as it would reduce the risk of disruption due to industrial action.

Of course.

My real point was that perhaps a forum mod should know better than to be making flippant off the cuff comments like suggesting we in for a 35 year wait for a new schedule, and that investment decisions in other projects will definitely be based on industrial disputes in other companies.

It’s not particularly raising the bar in terms of discussion levels - I would expect it on the Journal, but not in this forum to be honest.

CatInABox

I don't know, I think that the current and past struggles with the unions holding progress to ransom will definitely play into the decision making process on the Metro.

I mean, look at this: Irish Rail curtailed essential engineering work to fund pay rise. Essential work postponed to stave off a strike. Wasn't too long ago that I remember Irish Rail staff threatening to go on strike because of safety fears, which magically went away after a payrise.

Colonel Claptrap

Thankfully we are at near full employment.

The only credible argument I can see for choosing drivers is providing employment. Which is always a fantastic vote grabber.

Hopefully sense prevails.

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

I don't know, I think that the current and past struggles with the unions holding progress to ransom will definitely play into the decision making process on the Metro.

I mean, look at this: Irish Rail curtailed essential engineering work to fund pay rise. Essential work postponed to stave off a strike. Wasn't too long ago that I remember Irish Rail staff threatening to go on strike because of safety fears, which magically went away after a payrise.

I don’t disagree re the unions - but it is not going to be the sole factor.

Re that article, I would be interested to know exactly what work was postponed and how essential it was.

I can’t imagine it was “essential” in the sense of urgent and compromising safety, but rather I suspect that it could be the ongoing ballast cleaning work which will deliver speed improvements on the Cork line.

But even that seemed to happen so I’m finding this very odd.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

My comment was that whether or not driverless trains are used on Metrolink would be down to technological design constraints, and not down to an industrial dispute in a completely different company.

This industrial dispute has not been good, by any means, but to suggest that it’s going to be the major influence in the design of a new metro line is frankly daft.

Frankly it is daft if you think the decades of ongoing industrial disputes from CIE companies doesn't play a major part in the thought process and decisions made by the Department of Transport and related agencies!!!

You can be absolutely certain that minimising industrial relation disputes on any new major public transport project will be a priority for them.

Either way driverless is a no brainer. It allows for higher frequency, which means more capacity and thus better utilisation of a very expensive piece of infrastructure.

It also makes 24/7 running and higher frequency off-peak and at weekends much more economical to do. Again improving utilisation.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Frankly it is daft if you think the decades of ongoing industrial disputes from CIE companies doesn't play a major part in the thought process and decisions made by the Department of Transport and related agencies!!!

You can be absolutely certain that minimising industrial relation disputes on any new major public transport project will be a priority for them.

Either way driverless is a no brainer. It allows for higher frequency, which means more capacity and thus better utilisation of a very expensive piece of infrastructure.

It also makes 24/7 running and higher frequency off-peak and at weekends much more economical to do. Again improving utilisation.

Don’t ascribe words to me that I did not say. Read my posts again - nowhere did I say it wouldn’t be a factor.

I just said that making a statement that “it would definitely be driverless now” based on a dispute is daft.

It’s one factor in arriving at the decision. Cost and technology will come into the equation.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they have made certain that the new Metro will be driverless.

The NBRU have essentially ensured that they will have no members at all in the future.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

Don’t ascribe words to me that I did not say. Read my posts again - nowhere did I say it wouldn’t be a factor.

I just said that making a statement that “it would definitely be driverless now” based on a dispute is daft.

It’s one factor in arriving at the decision. Cost and technology will come into the equation.

The current dispute and all previous disputes will certainly push them in that direction. If that had previously been any uncertainty or disagreement about driverless, amongst the planners, it is likely completely gone now.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

The current dispute and all previous disputes will certainly push them in that direction. If that had previously been any uncertainty or disagreement about driverless, amongst the planners, it is likely completely gone now.

Again I am not arguing with that. But it won’t be the sole factor.

I’m just saying that off the cuff sweeping statements don’t add anything to this debate.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

Again I am not arguing with that. But it won’t be the sole factor.

I’m just saying that off the cuff sweeping statements don’t add anything to this debate.

Of course it won't be a sole factor, but it will be a major factor, perhaps the most important one.

Issues with CIE unions has driven almost all public transport policy here over the last twenty years. The removal of the Luas design team from Irish Rail to create the RPA and the subsequent decision to have Luas run by a private company rather then IR. Licensing of private intercity bus services. The decision to have TII/RPA design and run the Metro rather then IR. Hell even the decision to prioritise Metro over DU.

Don't kid yourself, the issues with the unions play a major role in most decisions.,

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

I just said that making a statement that “it would definitely be driverless now” based on a dispute is daft.

A dispute? - just one dispute?

There have been long running disputes at Irish Rail, the most recent one preventing the introduction of 'ten minute' Darts. Then there was the tram drivers dispute looking for 52% pay rise iirc, leading to a protracted dispute over pay causing great discomfort to their users and other people affected by the ensuing congestion. Then, Irish Rail had an ongoing dispute over pay. But that is only going back a short while. Why did Transdev get the gig for the trams when it would normally go to CIE or Irish Rail?

Driverless trains will not be looking for more pay, and will not be looking for unsocial hours compensation, etc etc. Technically it is a doddle to put in and would be considered nuts not to.

I think Metro will be driverless.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Of course it won't be a sole factor, but it will be a major factor, perhaps the most important one.

Issues with CIE unions has driven almost all public transport policy here over the last twenty years. The removal of the Luas design team from Irish Rail to create the RPA and the subsequent decision to have Luas run by a private company rather then IR. Licensing of private intercity bus services. The decision to have TII/RPA design and run the Metro rather then IR. Hell even the decision to prioritise Metro over DU.

Don't kid yourself, the issues with the unions play a major role in most decisions.,

Where am I kidding myself in any of my posts? No need to be insulting.

I merely said that using sweeping statements as certainties isn’t very constructive and tends to move the discussion to rock bottom level.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

A dispute? - just one dispute?

There have been long running disputes at Irish Rail, the most recent one preventing the introduction of 'ten minute' Darts. Then there was the tram drivers dispute looking for 52% pay rise iirc, leading to a protracted dispute over pay causing great discomfort to their users and other people affected by the ensuing congestion. Then, Irish Rail had an ongoing dispute over pay. But that is only going back a short while. Why did Transdev get the gig for the trams when it would normally go to CIE or Irish Rail?

Driverless trains will not be looking for more pay, and will not be looking for unsocial hours compensation, etc etc. Technically it is a doddle to put in and would be considered nuts not to.

I think Metro will be driverless.

That last point is rather different from the rather sweeping statement that you made earlier.

But as for being a doddle, well that’s down to the design engineers. We will see in due course what they come up with.

At the same time it’ll still be one factor in the mix of cost and technology.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

At the same time it’ll still be one factor in the mix of cost and technology.

It may be one factor.

Against: Need for passenger doors; higher cost of train and signalling.

For: Higher capacity; higher frequency; lower labour costs; possible 24 hr running.

I think FOR wins it.

Just think that once, not so long ago, lifts (elevators) used to have an operator driving the lift - have not seen one in years, very posh hotels and very posh department shops used to have them once long after everyone else had dispensed with them. I]The film 'Pretty Woman' had one driving the lift in the hotel[/I.

murphaph

LXFlyer wrote: »

That’s also the location where two completely different signalling systems have to interact, one of which is badly in need of renewal - that I suspect is not the case with your commuter lines.

Exactly! Irish Rail spent money on the wrong things. They should have upgraded the city centre signalling decades ago. It's a badly run company.

L1011

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just think that once, not so long ago, lifts (elevators) used to have an operator driving the lift - have not seen one in years, very posh hotels and very posh department shops used to have them once long after everyone else had dispensed with them. I]The film 'Pretty Woman' had one driving the lift in the hotel[/I.

Some deeply unionised firms in the US retained them after replacement with automated lifts due to local agreements to not lay off the staff. My great aunt was one for a bank in Chicago until she eventually agreed an early retirement deal!

Similar enough to how the Seltrac operated tube lines in London still have drivers really.

LXFlyer

murphaph wrote: »

Exactly! Irish Rail spent money on the wrong things. They should have upgraded the city centre signalling decades ago. It's a badly run company.

You do realise that they have been seeking the funding for well over 10 years if not significantly longer but were stalled by the DoT.

I think you underestimate how badly funded the railways have been.

The government have a lot to answer for in terms of how poorly funded our railway infrastructure has been.

murphaph

LXFlyer wrote: »

You do realise that they have been seeking the funding for well over 10 years if not significantly longer but were stalled by the DoT.

I think you underestimate how badly funded the railways have been.

The government have a lot to answer for in terms of how poorly funded our railway infrastructure has been.

Come on now. The DoT are as bad I will grant you but please don't intimate that IE are anything other than a very poor railway operator. If less money went on wages and shiny coaches to replace perfectly good rolling stock then there would be more for infrastructure.

Middle Man

LXFlyer wrote: »

You do realise that they have been seeking the funding for well over 10 years if not significantly longer but were stalled by the DoT.

I think you underestimate how badly funded the railways have been.

The government have a lot to answer for in terms of how poorly funded our railway infrastructure has been.

I'm not anti FG, but historically that party has not been known as a big fan of the railways. Railways is where the world is at now and Ireland has been caught napping again (the motorway system was only a starter) - if we don't get Metro Link built by the 2020's with a view to rolling out a mass transit line for each decade, we may become a backwater once again as other nations rapidly roll out their transit systems.

Middle Man

murphaph wrote: »

Come on now. The DoT are as bad I will grant you but please don't intimate that IE are anything other than a very poor railway operator. If less money went on wages and shiny coaches to replace perfectly good rolling stock then there would be more for infrastructure.

In fairness to IE, I've been traveling the railways since 1993 and I can say that even now in its under resourced state, the system is vastly superior to what we had then - much of the Belfast line was wooden sleepers, non-welded uneven rails and semaphore signals - some platforms were not even surfaced and most were far shorter - Howth Junction was an excuse for an interchange by comparison to now. Don't get me started on train frequency and reliability - it may not be great now but back then... :pac::pac::pac:

Yes, IE could certainly be better but fair is fair.

murphaph

Middle Man wrote: »

In fairness to IE, I've been traveling the railways since 1993 and I can say that even now in its under resourced state, the system is vastly superior to what we had then - much of the Belfast line was wooden sleepers, non-welded uneven rails and semaphore signals - some platforms were not even surfaced and most were far shorter - Howth Junction was an excuse for an interchange by comparison to now. Don't get me started on train frequency and reliability - it may not be great now but back then... :pac::pac::pac:

Yes, IE could certainly be better but fair is fair.

Let's not forget the two bridge collapses on the last 20 years. The last one almost drowned strain load of people (not an exaggeration…it could easily have come to that).

Irish Rail has never been about providing the best possible service. That culture never existed in CIE and still does not.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

Let's not forget the two bridge collapses on the last 20 years. The last one almost drowned strain load of people (not an exaggeration…it could easily have come to that).

Irish Rail has never been about providing the best possible service. That culture never existed in CIE and still does not.

The bridge collapse in Malahide was flagged to them prior to it happening - so how can anyone support that?

LXFlyer

murphaph wrote: »

Come on now. The DoT are as bad I will grant you but please don't intimate that IE are anything other than a very poor railway operator. If less money went on wages and shiny coaches to replace perfectly good rolling stock then there would be more for infrastructure.

I’m not defending work practices at IE but you specifically suggested that they did not look for funding the replacement of the signalling systems.

The fact is they have been for years, but the DoT put it repeatedly on the long finger.

That has been a serious problem in terms of moving the railway forward.

The Mark 3 stock would have needed new build push-pull coaches to remain in operation realistically, and would still have required additional staff - I think at this stage the ICR stock have more than proven their worth - much more flexible.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think at this stage the ICR stock have more than proven their worth - much more flexible.

They are noisy both inside and outside. Loco pulled trains are smoother, quieter and more comfortable. Just look at the Belmond Grand Hibernian and what it can charge for a real train!

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

They are noisy both inside and outside. Loco pulled trains are smoother, quieter and more comfortable. Just look at the Belmond Grand Hibernian and what it can charge for a real train!

If there is one thing be said about the ICRs is that they are far from noisy.

Let's be honest the Mark 3 -v- ICR debate has been done to death. It's long finished at this stage.

We would have needed additional rolling stock regardless.

murphaph

But IE replaced many of the mkIIIs with new coaching stock, the so called mkIVs. Absolutely no operational benefit whatsoever in that. MkIIIs are still providing perfectly adequate service in the UK to this day.

SeanW

LXFlyer wrote: »

If there is one thing be said about the ICRs is that they are far from noisy.

Compared to the 29000s yes, they are not noisy. But that's a low bar.

Compared to the coaches they replaced, not so much.