Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Do you have a link to the platform length? I searched the Abbey street stop length and Google presented it as handling up to 55m trams.

Just to clarify the 90 second ML claim - in the documents it's quite specific that it's up to 90 seconds and only at peak times. The operations manager was also clear at the engagement event that that will not be day one - it would take time to reach that service.

The platform lengths are going to be a running sore. Very short sighted and it prices in a real capacity constraint, there is no wriggle room for the future, and it's hard to understand if you're going to spend 15bn on something why have that physical restriction self imposed on future capacity enhancements.

It makes no sense to me anyway but it is what it is. It's the one big shortcoming of what is otherwise a good plan.

Apparently Copenhagen is suffering capacity issues. From AI although I accept AI shouldn't always be taken as gospel.

Copenhagen’s metro faces significant capacity constraints, particularly on the older M1/M2 lines and in high-traffic sections of the M3/M4 Cityringen, where trains run every 90–120 seconds, often leading to severe overcrowding during peak hours. Key issues include limited 3-car train lengths and extremely fast boarding times causing, in some cases, delays or passenger stress. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]Key Capacity Issues:

• Overcrowding (M1/M2/M3/M4): The system serves ~200,000+ daily passengers, causing intense overcrowding during rush hours, especially on the Amager lines.
• Station & Train Limits: The original M1/M2 lines use 3-car sets, though station platforms could support 4-car trains, a potential upgrade path.
• High-Frequency Constraints: M3/M4 lines often experience, at peak hours, 1.5-minute headways, forcing trains to occasionally wait for the one in front to clear the station.
• Aggressive Dwell Times: To maintain frequency, door-open times are very short, challenging commuters, especially those with strollers or in wheelchairs.
• Future Pressure: With passenger numbers returning to growth, the system must accommodate increasing demand despite high existing load.

I think that gets to heart of my issue. It's more the why not have 85 or 100m platforms like most other metros? Then all is good and it's future proof. Instead we are being boxed in to 65m.

It's like when they built the M50 with 2 lanes and roundabout junctions. Clearly inadequate and short sighted but at least that could be upgraded.

With this it's permanent.

Like I say it is what it is, it is just a point of frustration for me for what is otherwise a great project.

I also accept your positive points but on this one issue I disagree.

My philosophy on infrastructure, and I know it's an alien concept in Ireland, is do things right the first time or don't do them at all. We have a long history in this country of small minded parochial thinking that has cost us vast sums of money in having to fix self inflicted problems at the starting point. This is another example of that despite the obvious benefits it will bring to north Dublin which I acknowledge.

I'll never agree with short circuiting future proofing on any project especially one with this price tag.

I'm thinking of when Dublin Airport is handling 60 million passengers a year.

Why would it have cost billions more?

Also the Dubai metro is a carbon copy of what we are building (single bore, exact same dimensions). They have 85m long platforms for their automated trains. They didn't spends billions extra on 20 extra metres. They used common sense to give them expansion room. We are not doing that.

Are they wrong and we are right?

just on the 90 second thing, that’s very much it’s highest capacity, if that’s needed anytime in the first decade or so of use then they’ve made a mistake in design. I would say the 3 minute mark is where it will run at busy times for quite a while.
when the airport opened its second runway I remember there being complaints that as it wasn’t rammed immediately that it was a waste

No one expects the line to open at its maximum operational capacity.

However, I do think that the station boxes, platforms, access etc. should be built as long as is reasonably possible. There is no point in leaving an extra 30 meters of space beside each underground station box for future expansion, as the cost of remobilisation and execution under system operation is going to be far more expensive than just doing it the first time. Okay, we might not use the full length for 30 or even 50 years, but I would rather the project cost 15% more today than having to pay double the current station cost for an extension in future.

Interview with Sean Sweeney. Interesting first 5 minutes. Seemed disappointed with how we do things here and all the red tape and nonsense (Dept of Public Expenditure I guess) but says he successfully got it to procurement. He is actually taking a new role as CEO of Inland Rail in Australia.

Interesting interview.

He says he spent the last 2 years talking to the designers of the Copenhagen Metro and visiting other Metros in Europe.

It's a shame he couldn't stay another year or two.

Sounds like he was sold the idea that he's be hitting the ground running when he joined and instead spent two years sitting around wading through our trademark bureaucratic and planning sludge. No surprise he left I suppose