yabadabado wrote: » Will Metrolink not be what is used to connect the airport to city centre?
Zebra3 wrote: » How much would a tunnel from Clontarf to Clongriffin cost instead of quad tracking? (It's about 7.5km). Could use it purely for Dundalk and Belfast trains so no need for any stations.
CatInABox wrote: » Ever since Dart Underground was essentially cancelled, I've thought that IR and the NTA decided to play a long game with Infrastructure in Dublin. No point in putting forward the same multi billion euro plans that never got off the ground, much better to split it into smaller projects that made the case for the next project. Therefore we get them advocating for the Dart Expansion program, which is essentially the old Dart Underground project, just without the tunnel. Once that's complete, or at least close to, I can see them pivoting to a story of "Well, we've got all this work done, now all we need is a relatively short tunnel to connect it all up, it just makes sense". Once that's complete, then they can say, "Oh, we've now got this great rail network in Dublin, but the biggest problem with it is the lack of four tracking north of Connolly" and work on it then. That's how I see it going anyway, I'd love to be proved wrong and for a massive increase in the schedule.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Maybe, but this sounds like something that would take centuries in Ireland, I'd be surprised to see any of that in place before I retire in 15/20 years.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » More tracks from Clontarf to Raheny. Never in a million years. There are affluent people's back gardens on each side, and a golf course. Look at the carry on with trying to build a few bus lanes for bus connects. We do not have the political systems in place or leadership for any of this to ever happen.
GerardKeating wrote: » Or how about,make Metro Link DART guage Extend it to meet Northern line quad track it
L1011 wrote: » The original lines were built through even more affluent peoples estates for the most part. It'll happen eventually, national infrastructure priorities make easy to justify CPOs. You would destroy the business case with either 1 and 3. 2 is likely to happen anyway. Once it becomes 1600mm it becomes part of the rail network and bye bye driverless. Operating cost goes through the roof, business case is damaged. Quad tracking would be basically insane even if you were promoting it as a heavy rail alternative and would blow the costs out of the water.
Sligo eye wrote: » Driverless is on other rail networks regardless of gauge. By what margin does operating costs go through the roof? How can you claim business case is damaged without facts and figures to back that up? The railway industry operates globally on very low operating costs. Just because a rail system is standard gauge doesn’t imply different costs to a railway operating on Irish 1600mm gauge. It would be far more sensible to build metro at 1600mm as it would allow integration with the wider railway. Making an isolated railway doesn’t make any sense.
Sligo eye wrote: » Driverless is on other rail networks regardless of gauge. By what margin does operating costs go through the roof? How can you claim business case is damaged without facts and figures to back that up? The railway industry operates globally on very low operating costs. Just because a rail system is standard gauge doesn’t imply different costs to a railway operating on Irish 1600mm gauge.
Sligo eye wrote: » It would be far more sensible to build metro at 1600mm as it would allow integration with the wider railway. Making an isolated railway doesn’t make any sense.
L1011 wrote: » It would be reckelessly stupid to built Metro at 1600mm, considering it is designed to integrate with the Luas network with future upgrades to it; and its standard gauge.
GerardKeating wrote: » In Ireland, 1600mm IS the standard gauge. We have two incompatable rail networks in Dublin, Luas and DART. Metro will be a third, since it cannot run over the luas network, otherwise why the shutdown required to upgrade the Green line to metro. Unless we plan to convert the DART network to the european standard guage, it might make more sense to make Metro a DART, and integrate with that. Metro could be extended beyond the airport and join to the northern line near Rush/Lusk
Sligo eye wrote: » As to L1011’s claims about driver costs, I would love to see the figures that those claims are based on. If they exist.
GerardKeating wrote: » Metro will be a third, since it cannot run over the luas network, otherwise why the shutdown required to upgrade the Green line to metro.
Sligo eye wrote: » To L1011, I asked you where you got your figures from and in response you appear to be getting angry. So I guess you don’t have an answer. That’s fine, it tells me all I need to know.
L1011 wrote: » You are asking for figures on how not paying people is cheaper than paying people. Figures don't exist for something quite so bloody obvious. Is 0 less than 45k*200 (salary*driver guesswork)? There's your answer. There is a slight increase in maintenance costs for the kit but this is usually offset entirely by the computers being rather more efficient power-wise than a human driver ever is; before you even look at the massive staff savings costs. Also, driven trains cannot have the same headway as driverless trains, meaning you cut the capacity by going back to humans; which will again damage the business plan significantly.
Sligo eye wrote: » You need moving block signalling to run driverless trains. Along with compatible equipment on board each train. Not an insigificant cost. The Thameslink programme implemented driverless trains in the central core area between St Pancras and London Bridge. It has given the route the capacity of 24 trains per hour compared to the previous timetabled capacity of 11 tph. Drivers are kept on though, as they are there to ensure doors are opened and closed safely and to override the system if an emergency happens. The London Underground is mostly automatic but a driver is on board to ensure safety. Even the Docklands Light Railway maintain personnel on board to ensure safety and where necessary can manually drive the trains. So if your argument is that driverless trains reduce cost, that is not correct. Driverless trains do allow further capacity. But from a safety point of view there is always a human on board to ensure everything works safely. I presume you don’t work in the railway industry?
MJohnston wrote: » The DLR is GoA3 and the Underground is GoA2 so they're not really comparable. There are plenty of fully-automated GoA4 systems around Europe.
Sligo eye wrote: » Yes this is my very point. Getting the airport connected to the heavy rail network is vital for the long term future of the railways and a massive boost to our commitments to reduce carbon. As to L1011’s claims about driver costs, I would love to see the figures that those claims are based on. If they exist.
