Save that one to post here again in a decade :)
Encouraging words here from the minister for transport... 🤣
I doubt it very much. Its vaporware. But when I check back in 10 years either you or I can say I told you so. Based on the length of time so far my money is on me :) But we can live it hope.
With it serving the airport and the nature of the very early flights that leave the airport and as a result the staff who need to get there even earlier, I'd hope it would.
The whole project may well be entirely between your 10 yrar checks on this ocassion
Yep the front of the train looks like this:
Stickers they have now, super cute:
Yeah I'd be surprised if it becomes a 24 hour service but we'll have to see I guess.
We've 24 hour buses so it's possible.
It might go 24 hour at the weekends maybe.
Luas usually operates at a profit, so I don't see why not.
Having said that, operating cost wouldn't necessarily be the mean goal. As mentioned above, it is integral to the design (high frequency) and keeping the construction cost low. The point with staff, is more just how hard it is find staff and this helps with that.
Also it allows you to run at a higher off peak and weekend frequency then you might otherwise be able to afford with a staffed system and possibility of all night running too (Copenhagen has that).
I like on the Copenhagen metro, the seats at the front have a sticker with a fake set of controls so you can pretend you're driving the train.
VROOOOOMmmmm
A basic operational profit - maybe. But our public transport fares are quite low and its unlikely we're going to do the Australian/French/Spanish/Actually nearly everywhere else thing of shoving a surcharge on the airport stop either; so its not guaranteed.
It would never return enough to pay back commercial bonds to pay for its construction; but that isn't the point.
Do you think the Metro could run at a profit here since it has so few staff?
Yes, it will be a fully automated system, no staff on board, there are many such systems, Copenhagen is the most obvious one, which Metrolink is modelled after. They are all over France, Germany, etc. They have been operating for years now.
It is called GoA4, Grade of Automation 4, there is a list of them here:
one of the main points of these types of systems is to greatly reduce staffing needs. There would be no point taking the driver out, only to replace them with a service agent! Specially when public transport is struggling with staffing issues. A major advantage of this system is how few staff it needs.
BTW most of the Metro stations in Copenhagen are also unstaffed. Also there is no drivers cab up front, passengers can literally sit where a driver would and get a great view.
BBTW The funny thing is, if you have been to Heathrow airport and transferred between terminals, then you have been on one without probably even realising it.
I usually check once a decade or so to see if the Dublin Metro has started being built.
I'll check again in 2034.
Loads of them. Copenhagen, which we're cribbing some of the design/operations concepts from, has no staff on board for instance.
Very few automated systems have any method for a human onboard to take control, the DLR is an outlier.
Are you sure there won't be staff on board? I find this hard to believe from even a safety point of view. Is there any automated service in Europe which doesn't even have a nominal "customer service" person on board, who could take control of the carriage if necessary.
And this staff member actually controls the opening and closing the doors and making sure people are clear of the platform, it is their main job and the reason they are on the train. Metrolink won't have any regular staff on board like this (obviously security/ticket checkers from time to time), thus the platform doors.
As an interesting aside, the DLR has had two crashes, both times a staff member was manually controlling the train.
BTW Some of the newer London Underground stations on the newer lines like Jubilee and the new Elizabeth line have platform screen doors, despite having a driver. Interestingly the stated reason in London isn't passenger safety, though it is a nice side benefit, the reason they installed them was to stop dirt and rubbish from the platforms from getting on the line! It turns out with these in place, they don't have to clean the lines nearly as often, which improves reliability and reduces staff costs.
Mod: Despite warnings the off-topic posts would be deleted, they continue to appear, with replies continuing to pollute this thread.
Well, the red crayon is out. Off-topic threads deleted. If you want your posts to be read, post them in the correct thread.
11 posts deleted.
DLR has the controller/service agent on-board too.
There are a few Tube stations with central platforms and no screen doors that frankly feel incredibly unpleasant and unsafe (thinking some of the ones around Clapham on the Northern Line). I can't imagine why you'd design a new metro without them.
Practically speaking, they cannot - it's an integral part of the whole design which is a generation ahead of what MN was going to be.
A huge cost of building metro systems is the underground stations because of their size. With a 3min headway between trains - the minimum with line-of-sight/driver systems - older systems need to have long (90m+) platforms to provide capacity. Long platform stations are expensive because you're often forced to mine them out as locations where cheap and easy cut n' cover are far more limited given their bigger footprint.
The modern approach to metro design - ML is an example - cuts significant cost by making stations simpler - shallow, cut n' cover and relatively small with shorter 60m platforms. But this change of approach means shorter trains, which on older systems would mean lower capacity. So to maintain capacity, the frequency is raised and the only way to safely/reliably do this - i.e. get to a 90second headway - it is with driverless trains and platform screen doors.
This is also a big boost for passengers as it means half the average time waiting for the next train.
So if they dropped the platform screen doors, then they'd have to abandon the idea of driverless which would mean re-designing stations to have longer platforms, etc. etc.
London DLR has no platform doors, but that's the only automated metro I can think of that doesn't. DLR is almost entirely overground, so maybe that's a reason.
Hong Kong MTR is human-driven, and it uses platform doors (was the first place I ever saw them).
Metrolink is actually very cost efficient as it is: the design priotisises low construction costs. The problem is that delays in planning have allowed construction inflation, which affects everything, to make oit more expensive to build even before we start to build it.
It basically can't be, due to being driverless.
And going to driven would increase costs.
Makes sense. Would this be a European minimum safety standard or an "optional" extra? Curious as to whether this is something that might be value engineered out of the project in the future when they inevitably try and trim costs.
Platform screen doors. Most modern built stations/metro systems get them and they have even started putting them on older stations too. Yes, they are mostly for saftey.
Helps stop people falling on the tracks and can also help if a fire breaks out in a tunnel, it stops a train from driving the fire into the stations, there has been some awful tragedies in the past due to this.
Metrolink is going to be a fully automated, driverless system, so if they have screen doors, they don't have to worry about looking out for people falling on the track.
I think it's for automatic trains
I have a question that does not pertain to anything previously but I'm just curious about. Why are the proposed stations fitted with glazed screens on the platform itself? I have seen this in other countries (primarily airport stops), but what's the purpose? Solely health and safety?
Mod: Can we keep this thread on track! You know, the one that goes from Swords to Charlemont and back again.
The oil industry is not on that line.
Let me apologise for dragging the thread off topic. Metrolink please from now on.
I wouldn't say that there is a clear case for fossil fuels in general. Ignoring externalities, there is only a case for natural gas and 2 or 3 oil-based products as primary energy sources, these days. Coal and the like is dead. Fossil fuels dominate as a primary energy source but a lot of that is legacy - it's had a 150 year head start after all. The patterns of investment, seen globally across different countries, cultures and political climates - from Texas to China, has shown a complete shift into renewables for electricity with 80/90% of new capacity globally being into wind, solar PV or batteries in the last 4 or so years.
Unless you're a tin-foil hat type crank - there are a few here - this isn't the result of some global conspiracy led by a shadowy cabal of internationalist tree-huggers with Eamon Ryan at the top table. This is the market - economics and finance - speaking.
With a large installed legacy of fossil fuel infrastructure, it will take a while for renewables to dominate but this isn't surprising. It took until 1965 for coal to be displaced by oil as the global leader in terms of primary energy source, despite the fact that it had been clear for 30 or 40 years that oil and it's derivatives were superior. But exponential growth (in renewables), even if the exponent is considered small, will overtake linear (or no) growth (in fossil fuels) and this is the pattern we've been seeing for the last 10 or 15 years.
Ok but so, we can also use alternatives and reduce our need for energy with petter planning, transport and better building. Why Wed yourself to a particular fuel source and support planning in a way that maximises consumption?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1170065b4dc42461431e566fc739ce94.svg)
