There hasn't been a single insult.
You are making an untenable suggestion about making a major change to station design during construction. I have shown why it is impossible to do so.
That should be the end of it, but you continue.
I miss the peace and quiet before Vanilla lost old forum bans.
What are you even talking about? You're derailing the thread over a poster's opinion on platform lengths ffs. Let's keep it on topic and go without the insults.
You disagree, because you refuse to accept any input as to why your ideas are wrong. And wrong they almost always are.
And that is the story of over a decade on this forum, barring the wonderful period you weren't able to post here pre-Vanilla losing legacy forum bans.
Opinions can be wrong, yours usually are. Being told you are wrong is not an insult, being told you appear to live in a different reality is not an insult either. If you are taking them up as so, you may take that as a lesson.
I disagree. I think you need to adjust your attitude and don't insult others like you have done to me the last few posts just for giving my opinion. I haven't insulted you.
Nobody who lives in the shared reality everyone else is in will agree with you.
It will not be changed before construction. It will not be changed in the service lifetime of the railcars ordered either.
In the documentation it says the stations are designed to be futureproofed. I don't know what that means because it is not explained. It could be that the platforms can be extended anyway without too much fuss. If not I'd like to see it addressed.
We are not going to agree. In my view if we are spending 15bn I can not understand why we would penny pinch on things like this.
What stuff looks like to you, when you seem to think you can just move lines on a screen and it will all be OK, is irrelevant to reality.
There is far more to it than simply building 10m more platform in each direction, all of which I have already mentioned.
I think all the boxes are the same length and it actually looks to me like they can take a platform extension. I could be wrong about that but that is what it looks like to me anyway.
That station box is that length, and yet still has significant engineering challenges to a platform extension, which cannot be done without delays to construction; which you are hand-waving away because it looks OK to you when thinking its just extending a line on a screen.
Adding roughly a third of the platform length is not "a few metres" either.
I am explaining to you that the platform length is not going to be changed before or during construction, because it simply cannot be without incurring significant delays and significant costs.
I haven't suggested that, have I? Why not shorten them and extend the platform a few metres?
The station box is nearly 120m long. I think you are seeing some massive changes that would would take years and red tape in my mere suggestion of extending the platforms. I don't think that is the case.
I don't why you're jumping down my throat, I'm just making a suggestion because I think the platform lengths are too short at 65m.
Platform access steps don't need to be at platform level?
I think I've heard it all now.
"massively redesign back of house layout" is also not a minor change in terms of engineering effort, by the way.
Not at platform level. Look at the righthand side vs the left - note the utilities are on top of the platform on the righthand side. The platform can be extended within the width of the station box. I don't think this is as insurmountable as you are making out. I'm not suggesting a 100 metre platform btw - I think 85 would be better than 65.
Do you see all the stuff that is already where the platforms need to be at track level if extended?
Yeah, that stuff still needs to be there.
You think this is some easy "change line here, build" thing. It isn't, and that is why it is not going to happen.
Also, see above about the potential to need additional entrance/exits and ventilation capacity for longer platforms. A longer platform may bring an end too far from the planned egress.
You're assuming the station box would need to be extended and as result there'd be extra land take. Here is a station box (in this case O'Connell Street). What do you notice about the platform length vs the box and side-walkway either side?
Why would more land take above ground be needed? The station box itself is somewhere around 120m.
It being a railway order is critical in pointing out that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, for starters.
Redesigning station boxes - a hell of a lot more than just stretching existing designs is required, you may need additional accesses, additional emergency egress, additional ventilation and so on for a larger platform area; applying for a new RO - this is not a minor change; and potentially producing new CPOs if larger land take is required will take years because that is simply how long things like this take.
You seem to think this is like deciding you want to make an extension to a house slightly larger.
Changing the platform length now is what you do if you want to add two years delay.
So what if it's a railway order? Why would it take years? It depends on the level of deviation. It may be possible to extend the platforms without extending the station box btw. The minister can make orders for amendment where there is no significant deviation.
Metrolink has a Railway Order, not planning permission; just to start with how disconnected from reality you are. Permission to alter station designs would take years, as would design work, potential land acquisition, and (costly) change orders on the tenders.
It is entirely impossible in the actual world we live in, not Planet Kermit, for the platform length to be changed before construction starts.
That isn't wrong; but if you want to continue blathering incorrectly from Planet Kermit, I'm sure you will. The same planet where Trump is good and twenty lane highways work along with your other infrastructure insanity.
The time for a debate about platform length was to make coherent submissions during the consultation process, but you wouldn't have been able to make a coherent submission, as you don't live in the real world on anything infrastructure related and never have.
But it is, so there we are. You clearly don't know how planning applications work. Planning amendments are routine for all sorts of projects and for projects already under construction. This is not breaking news.
I'm not going to argue the toss. I would like to see them revisit the platform length, you wouldn't. That's fine.
Not one thing I've said is wrong.
This is just completely wrong. Simple as that. If they want to change the specifications of the station boxes they can do so whether they have tendered or not, whether they have awarded contracts or not. They can make a planning application for amendment anytime, preferably before construction of station boxes starts but even then they could still do it and the contractor will construct whatever changes are made.
I would like to see a mistake avoided. I don't know what your attitude is for.
"Nothing" except that reality does not match the weird world you live in.
They don't have the designs for longer platforms. They don't have the land ownership for longer platforms. They have not tendered for long platforms.
They are not getting extended during construction (if ever). Get over it.
They can submit a planning application to change the platform lengths even after construction has started. Nothing stopping them doing so. Developers do that all the time. Even if it is rejected they can just stick with the 65 metres (a short-sighted mistake I think).
The platform length is not going to be changed. It could not possibly be changed before construction.
I have been looking for the closest analog in terms of specifications of the proposed ML tunnel.
The Dubai metro red line is the closest. The internal single bore tunnel diameter is exactly the same as that for ML (8.5m). If anyone is curious what it will actually look like this is spot on. Depths are also very similar (circa 20 - 25m).
Note the stations. The Dubai red line stations are 85m in length compared to just 65m for the Dublin platforms (something I hope they address before they get to station construction).
Technically Keolis will have a presence in Dublin if that consortium wins it, in that they'll be operating the Luas come September.
But I doubt they'd have any other dedicated office space outside of what's already at the Luas depots.
I'd say there's a good chance that TII will be making some of the office space available to the various contractors appointed for the project. The PPP Company in particular will have a large staff for a long time (they'll be operating and maintaining the system for a couple of decades) and it's possible no member of the consortium already has a presence in Dublin. TII might have decided it's cheaper for them to rent a big floor plate rather than contractors having to price for it in their tender. It would also be handy having them in the same building.
The only thing is I would have thought it would have been better to rent office space around Swords or the airport as the depot will be an important location, particularly when rolling stock starts arriving. It would also be cheaper and more central on the route.
I would have thought that a lot of the managers would be working out of site offices, but as I say, I don't know anything about it.
And hey, maybe they'll be able to keep some of those 400 office workers around to move onto the next infrastructure project that follows immediately after ML…
In contrast the DART+ programme has a small 2 storey prefab building at the Inchicore site, housing around 25 staff. Not saying that more are needed per say but there is a bit of a sense that metrolink is quickly becoming the golden child of infrastructure projects and rightly so. Its very much a new thing in an Irish context.
They're going to be managing over 8000 workers across dozens of major sites all over Dublin.
