Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

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…

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 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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think my suggestion is untenable and yes you have insulted me. I'm the only one who has posted any information btw. You've posted absolutely nothing to back up any assertions.

Again enough of this. I just find you unpleasant to engage with here really.