Is it worth "downgrading" a commuter line?

Stephen15

IE 222 wrote: »

It's a relatively short section to bypass. A good bus service linking with Sandyford stop will suffice their needs. I think the idea of terminating a Metro at Sandyford due to this issue just shows the lack of vision and ability of the NTA. Either build it right or don't build it at all. Once Cherrywood is complete Luas will be overwhelmed and the idea of transferring at Sandyford is ridiculous.

So you're essentially saying we should rip existing infrastructure. Luas will be overwhelmed once Cherrywood is built hence why Metro is needed and I wouldn't call the idea of transferring at Cherrywood ridiculous transfers from one mode to another are done all over the world without issues. Metro will likely be at a frequency of 5 mins or better at peak so there shouldn't be any issues transferring.

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

Im not looking at it from a consumer perspective more so an operating and cost one. Another separate fleet of trains, a separate set of drivers, separate depot's, separate facilities and staff, separate maintenance staff and equipment. This stuff ain't cheap why increase the costs unnecessarily when we already have 2 companies and rail modes capable of doing the same job a new 3rd can do. We the tax payer will get a better deal buying in bulk than investing in so many different types of equipment.

Giving the MN system to DART will give IE more fares and in return we pay less subsidies to them.

As Metro will be 1435mm, giving operation to IE will save absolutely nothing and just tie it to IEs higher cost base.

tabbey

end of the road wrote: »

the lines replaced by both metro and tram schemes in the uk were very lightly used and infrequently serviced lines and were probably on the verge of closure in some cases, at least the earlier examples.

I beg to differ with this part of your post; Manchester Victoria to Bury was reasonably well used, while Piccadilly / Oxford Road to Altrincham was one of the busiest suburban services in the North of England.

Manchester Metrolink was devised not because of poor usage, but because for many years there had been calls for a link between Piccadilly and Victoria stations. Metrolink was a lot cheaper than a new underground connection.

donvito99

IE 222 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe the Green line will be revamped within a 4 month closure. If Metro is replacing Luas the line will be shut for an extremely long period. If Luas can suffice the demand I'm all for leaving it be and make the small improvements where needs be but a Metro upgrade will require major works.

Not really looking at from a branding point of view but more so of having a common fleet that can be moved around, capacity altered, less depots, staffing costs and reducing the need of buying and designing another fleet of trains. This 2/3 min frequency and driver less trains is fantasy stuff.

Only if Irish Rail were to run it presumably, lots of other systems do this comfortably.

I'll say this again, there are virtually zero cost advantages to a common system and what's more, there's no need for this when we are looking for separate, high frequency lines that interchange. Dinky little 60m Metro trains will likely give the Dart a run for its money for a fraction of the expenditure.

end of the road

donvito99 wrote: »

Only if Irish Rail were to run it presumably, lots of other systems do this comfortably.

I'll say this again, there are virtually zero cost advantages to a common system and what's more, there's no need for this when we are looking for separate, high frequency lines that interchange. Dinky little 60m Metro trains will likely give the Dart a run for its money for a fraction of the expenditure.

even if that would be the case. they would be so restricted and restrictive in terms of capacity that it would make the whole thing useless long term. what happens when the whole thing outgrows itself, which it likely will if we are only going to have 60m trains, even if it is at 3 minute frequency? it needs proper full length trains, not 60m dinky ones, even if we aren't going to integrate it with the 2 other existing rail types.

donvito99

end of the road wrote: »

even if that would be the case. they would be so restricted and restrictive in terms of capacity that it would make the whole thing useless long term. what happens when the whole thing outgrows itself, which it likely will if we are only going to have 60m trains, even if it is at 3 minute frequency? it needs proper full length trains, not 60m dinky ones, even if we aren't going to integrate it with the 2 other existing rail types.

Right, so let's build it to Dart length (underground stations, lengthen existing platforms)... So what then is the reason for this argument for replacing Metro with Dart?

end of the road

donvito99 wrote: »

Right, so let's build it to Dart length (underground stations, lengthen existing platforms)... So what then is the reason for this argument for replacing Metro with Dart?

better economies of scale and integration seem to be the arguments. same unit types, use of existing depots, use of existing rail knowledge, etc.
even if we don't integrate it with dart, it is going to need to be a massively high capacity system which can withstand growth for a long long time given our refusal to continuously invest when growth occurs and extra capacity is needed.
if all we are going to get are trains of 60m, then we probably may as well just leave it as luas and get the signalling headways down to allow greater frequency.
do it properly or not at all.

Stephen15

No reason why it couldn't be to take trains of a length of 90m or 100m which would be somewhere in the middle between the length of a DART train and Luas tram . Could start off initially with 60m trains but platforms could be built to take a 90m train so as the service gets busier trains can be lengthened where appropriate just like the way Green trams are being lengthened to 54m and red line trams were lengthened.

60m HFV trains would still represent a significant capacity increase over 54m LFV Luas trams. Due to the fact they are designed to take a larger amount of passengers than trams as the bogies are fully underneath the tram and not taking up space in allowing for a larger amount of standing space inside the train if bench style seats are implemented.

Last Stop

With metro going to Driverless High floor 65m trains, the benefit of DART is minimal.
In terms of the future of the green line south of Sandyford, metro going direct via Leopardstown to Bray while the Luas going via Ballygobbin etc. to Tallaght via Sandyford would work quite well...

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

As Metro will be 1435mm, giving operation to IE will save absolutely nothing and just tie it to IEs higher cost base.

Correct, but I'm not proposing to build it at 1435mm my suggestion is to build it as DART.

IE 222

Stephen15 wrote: »

What are you suggesting that IE run the Metro under the Dart brand or have it connected up to the 5ft 3 gauge rail network. If the latter than that's going to cost more as platforms will have to be longer, the system will be more maintenance intensive and it will cost more to connect to the rest of the rail network.

If what you are saying is the case then it would be cheaper to built DU than the Metro.

Yes, 5ft 3 is the way to go as that's what we currently have throughout the country. Forget MN & DU as they are use the finds for both projects and build something more useful. DU can be shoehorned now with the PPT route been opened. We are currently shifting all Dublin and regional heavy rail to one common fleet. These plans need a fresh look from a cost perspective.

The Wexford and Northern lines need relief and a Dart line running from Shankil to Donabate in replace of Luas and Metro will provide this.

IE 222

Last Stop wrote: »

With metro going to Driverless High floor 65m trains, the benefit of DART is minimal.
In terms of the future of the green line south of Sandyford, metro going direct via Leopardstown to Bray while the Luas going via Ballygobbin etc. to Tallaght via Sandyford would work quite well...

Giving the cost of building the shell of a hospital in this country, when the bill for building tunnels comes in the first thing to be scaled back on to save costs will be the fleet. Forget 65m high floor driverless trams at 2-3 min frequencies. The NTA are struggling to get a few bus lanes put in place, even if the budget was there they will not deliver anything like this.

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

Giving the cost of building the shell of a hospital in this country, when the bill for building tunnels comes in the first thing to be scaled back on to save costs will be the fleet. Forget 65m high floor driverless trams at 2-3 min frequencies. The NTA are struggling to get a few bus lanes put in place, even if the budget was there they will not deliver anything like this.

The units will be ordered about the time the TBMs start and the entire construction will be based around the vehicle type.

They'll be automated high floor 1435mm units. Not anything else.

Tunnels AND trains for 1600mm would be dearer anyway - put the crayons away. Irish Rail will not be getting their inefficient claws on Metrolink either, so that idea can be dropped.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

The units will be ordered about the time the TBMs start and the entire construction will be based around the vehicle type.

They'll be automated high floor 1435mm units. Not anything else.

Tunnels AND trains for 1600mm would be dearer anyway - put the crayons away. Irish Rail will not be getting their inefficient claws on Metrolink either, so that idea can be dropped

Have you signed off on all this.

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

Have you signed off on all this.

You are the one going on a crayon fantasy with zero idea of reality, costs or complexity.