Rail Users Ireland Forum

Go Back   Rail Users Ireland Forum > General Information & Discussion > Events, Happenings and Media
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Unread 24-03-2008, 02:31   #21
Colm Moore
Local Liaison Officer
 
Colm Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
Default Low-capacity design favoured for Metro North

Quote:
Low-capacity design favoured for Metro North
From ireland.comSaturday, 22nd March, 2008

THE RAILWAY Procurement Agency (RPA) is to go ahead with a low-capacity design for Metro North, according to briefing documents circulated to the four consortiums which are bidding for the project. Tim O'Brien reports.

The agency confirmed to bidders at a specially organised "workshop" in recent weeks that it wanted to develop an underground which uses vehicles that are longer but similar in width and height to the overground Luas trams.

The Luas has already faced criticism from commentators, including Dr Garret FitzGerald, who say its current capacity problems relate to the fact that it is a lower-capacity tram system rather than a heavy-rail metro line.

However, the Green Line Luas was constructed so that it could be converted to a heavy-rail metro line by the addition of faster, wider-bodied carriages - at least from the Beechwood stop outbound.

However concern has been expressed that such an approach would not be possible under ground, unless the tunnel was constructed to a wider specification than that which has been indicated in the pre-tender advice given to the bidding companies at the workshop.

The agency's specification envisages a maximum 18,000-20,000 passengers an hour in each direction, in what would essentially be a 90m (295ft) underground tram.

In contrast, the overground Dart has a capacity of at least 36,000 passengers per direction per hour.

In a further difficulty for Metro North, its catchment area is much wider than the coastal Dart line, encompassing much of the mid-city, and taking in major installations such as the Mater hospital and its future extensions, DCU, Dublin airport and the expanding Fingal area of north Dublin.

RPA chief executive Frank Allen has said Metro North is fully compliant with population projections in the Fingal Development Plan.

However, the Dublin Institute of Technology Futures Academy has calculated that more than one million people could migrate to the Dublin-Belfast axis by 2020.

This would create additional development pressure beyond the Fingal administrative area, which would critically affect the usage projections for Metro North.

Faced with the problem, Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey has decided against asking the Railway Procurement Agency to build additional capacity in the Metro North tunnel, a feature he acknowledged would affect the cost.

However, Mr Dempsey failed to give the agency's plans his outright blessing, remarking that he "could not guarantee" that the capacity of the proposed Metro North was sufficient to meet population forecasts.

Speaking at the recent launch of plans for the CIÉ's underground Dart interconnector, which will use the wider-bodied trains, Mr Dempsey said he had been assured by the RPA that Metro North had sufficient capacity and, while he acknowledged that there were industry concerns about the issue, "the time for consultation and talking is finished".

The agency expects to issue tender documents to the bidders by May.
http://home.eircom.net/content/irela...view=Eircomnet
Colm Moore is offline  
Unread 24-03-2008, 04:51   #22
arkk
New to the board
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
The agency confirmed to bidders at a specially organised "workshop" in recent weeks that it wanted to develop an underground which uses vehicles that are longer but similar in width and height to the overground Luas trams.
So is this another rehashed article stating that metro will be a light-metro like porto and unlike the DART, or are they actually now going to use on street style trams instead of the, erm, fat ones?
arkk is offline  
Unread 25-03-2008, 11:47   #23
MrX
Really Regular Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 585
Default

This is *MY* tax they're spending. I would like to see a full justification of this decision published a.s.a.p.

It seems completely short sighted.

Are they just fixated on Luas trams or is there some logic to this?!
MrX is offline  
Unread 25-03-2008, 13:38   #24
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern line
Posts: 1,311
Default

Its partly costs and partly the ability of the metro concept to be interoperable with the Luas.

In my opinion I believe the Red line and Lucan line and possible Rathfarnham - Liffey Junction lines (ie on street) should be 2.4 and tramlike while all other lines should be at least 2.65 if not 2.8m in width.

Length or frequency are not the issues here - its width.
Mark is offline  
Unread 25-03-2008, 15:06   #25
clonsilladart
Regular Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Clonsilla
Posts: 65
Default

I actually think there are no Technical reason whatsoever for the RPA's blind push for Trams.
The RPA will never recommend Heavy Rail, as this skirts far too close the IE's "expertise".

Bottom line on what should be done:
- Sort out the union issues within IE (Probably an imposable task at this stage)
- Combine the RPA and IE into a single body.
- Start making proper engineering based decisions (ie Heavy Rail on Major Corridors and Luas Trams as short interconnectors)

Unfortunately it's far too late for all of this. The easy decision was made years ago when the RPA was formed.
clonsilladart is offline  
Unread 25-03-2008, 15:49   #26
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern line
Posts: 1,311
Default

The RPA will never recommend heavy rail on their corridors simply cos its too expensive and not needed.

I think the RPA felt they could not have developed another transport mode that would not integrate with either the DART or the Luas. Unfortunately it'll be to our detriment when they realise that 2.4m is just too narrow for a metro.

Originally they were going to get around this issue by curving the rolling stock body outwards but no supplier was interested in this concept. Siemens seems to be the biggest name argueing that 2.4m is too small. For comparison Porto is 2.65 and Madrid is 2.8.
Mark is offline  
Unread 25-03-2008, 15:52   #27
Mark Gleeson
Technical Officer
 
Mark Gleeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Coach C, Seat 33
Posts: 12,669
Default

End of the day the simplest solution here is to allow the 4 tendering consortia to simply put their best proposal on the table

So consortia 1 might charge y but offer wider carriages with more capacity, other consortia might stay narrow and charge z, x and v respectively

What if y was the lowest cost overall? What if they will charge 10% more but promise a 6 month quicker job?

This isn't lowest cost tendering this the most economically beneficial or something similar. Sadly the passenger impact isn't considered, obviously its easy make money when the trains are stuffed to the roof, having a significant % of spare capacity doesn't go down well with bean counters, but goes down well with us since you will always fill it

And no the answer isn't 42

Can we take the tech spec stuff to the technical forum folks

Last edited by Mark Gleeson : 25-03-2008 at 15:57.
Mark Gleeson is offline  
Unread 25-03-2008, 20:06   #28
Colm Moore
Local Liaison Officer
 
Colm Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
Default

The best was to do alternatives in tendering is to get everyone to tender for both options, with one being a preferred option.
Colm Moore is offline  
Unread 27-03-2008, 19:15   #29
dowlingm
Really Really Regluar Poster
 
dowlingm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,371
Default

Said it before, saying it again. Leave Green Line as is except expanded to 50m trams, keep the TBM heading south from SSG into Terenure/Templeogue and down to Tallaght. No worries about compatibility, no shutdown of the Green Line to connect it to Metro North, no waste of money on Line BX.

Dig out the tunnel and rough in the stations and then add stations progressively south as funds permit.

Yes, it will cost squillions but it adds a quantum increase in capacity in an area of the city choked by buses, and gives an alternative to Green Line in terms of catchment management in the inner City. It is a reverse of the usual method of Irish transit planning - accept a minority level of transit usage and build capacity behind what little demand there is.
dowlingm is offline  
Unread 27-03-2008, 19:51   #30
Tadhg17
Regular Poster
 
Tadhg17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 49
Default

Ya agree the tendering groups should put their best proposal forward for the metro and then choose the best option.

They should continue tunnelling onwards towards rathmines/rathgar or terenure, should'nt just stop in st stephens green.
__________________
Check oot http://www.underthekitchensink.com/

Last edited by Tadhg17 : 27-03-2008 at 19:53. Reason: spelling mistake
Tadhg17 is offline  
Unread 28-03-2008, 15:13   #31
al2637
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Default

Meant to post this yesterday but am up to my eyes in work...

From the Irish Times (article was actually about Luas... but anyway)

Quote:
In relation to the capacity of the proposed Metro North, Mr Allen said this was about 20,000 passengers in each direction an hour, which he said was an "exceptionally high level of passengers". Very few cities in Europe - outside of London and Paris - had a metro line requiring a greater capacity than that, he said.

Mr Allen said he did not believe the density of population or the density of public transport would ever deliver greater passenger numbers to Metro north than its built-in capacity.

While he acknowledged the tunnel could not be expanded when built, he reminded the members of the committee that Metro west was also being developed and passengers could divert to that, along with all the new Luas lines.

To expand capacity in an underground you did not dig up the tunnel but added more lines, he said.
I have to say, I do broadly agree with this argument. Dublin is a low density city, we will benefit more from a network of low->medium capacity lines than one or 2 high capacity ones.
al2637 is offline  
Unread 28-03-2008, 16:34   #32
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern line
Posts: 1,311
Default

Im still of the opinion that they are leaving themselves open to capacity issues by using the narrow 2.4 width. Far too narrow.

A lot can happen in 5 years. The same was said about the Luas capacity - that it was more than enough. Its the governments plan to bring in congestion charging like London. Have they taken that into account?

Last edited by Mark : 28-03-2008 at 16:39.
Mark is offline  
Unread 30-03-2008, 13:38   #33
Colm Moore
Local Liaison Officer
 
Colm Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
Default

Have the specifications been made public?

"While he acknowledged the tunnel could not be expanded when built, he reminded the members of the committee that Metro west was also being developed and passengers could divert to that, along with all the new Luas lines." - not much use for DCU-Trinity.
Colm Moore is offline  
Unread 01-04-2008, 15:28   #34
dowlingm
Really Really Regluar Poster
 
dowlingm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by al2637 View Post
I have to say, I do broadly agree with this argument. Dublin is a low density city, we will benefit more from a network of low->medium capacity lines than one or 2 high capacity ones.
Which is why Luas Green should be left as is and another radial line (i.e. Metro North-South) used to drain some of the excess demand. That said - look at the density that has been proposed even for Dublin 4 and what is likely to appear if the docks are moved to Balbriggan.

There's always the option to run parallel surface routes beside the Metro North to help with demand, especially since it is likely to take a lengthy commissioning period before maximum peak capacity can be safely operated. Many people may dislike going underground whether through phobias, security issues or mobility issues such as out of service escalators/elevators. Others might like to continue to use transit but retain cellphone service.

Both the Yonge and Sheppard subway lines in Toronto have a parallel bus which also serves people who live in the midpoints between stations. That's the kind of coordination integrated transit authorities can bring.
dowlingm is offline  
Unread 01-04-2008, 19:43   #35
Colm Moore
Local Liaison Officer
 
Colm Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dowlingm View Post
Others might like to continue to use transit but retain cellphone service.
Some systems have done deals with phone operators.

But do you really want to hear "I'm on THE METRO!!"
Colm Moore is offline  
Unread 03-04-2008, 03:00   #36
dowlingm
Really Really Regluar Poster
 
dowlingm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,371
Default

You're right Victor, and there has been talk about doing that here in Toronto too. I'd be happy with mobile transmitters on platforms to replace the public phones and to allow Blackberrys to check in for mail but not in the tunnels. Sometimes it can be annoying with some eejit on the streetcar telling the world and his/her mother the details of their life.
dowlingm is offline  
Unread 03-04-2008, 03:06   #37
undo
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 95
Default

I think mobile coverage in the tunnels is unavoidable. It's about to be allowed on planes even and people will demand it be available *everywhere*.

Whether that's a good thing or not is a separate question entirely, but I expect people will be noisy about it until it happens.
undo is offline  
Unread 03-04-2008, 09:12   #38
Thomas J Stamp
Chairman/Publicity
 
Thomas J Stamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Home of Hurling
Posts: 2,708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
Some systems have done deals with phone operators.

But do you really want to hear "I'm on THE METRO!!"
Well a few years ago I did get out the mobile on the LU and pretend that i had great coverage and having a pretend conversation. Cue many people taking out their phones and studying the bars intently.
__________________
We are the passengers
Thomas J Stamp is offline  
Unread 03-04-2008, 10:15   #39
Brian Condron
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp View Post
Well a few years ago I did get out the mobile on the LU and pretend that i had great coverage and having a pretend conversation. Cue many people taking out their phones and studying the bars intently.
Reminds me of that great Dara O'Briain bit, take your phone out on the London Underground, pretend to receive a call and exclaim at the top of your voice "IT'S FALLEN BY HOW MUCH? SELL, SELL OH DEAR LORD SELL!". If anyone asks just say "oh we all have these phones in Ireland".

I've always thought that a great idea for a sitcom would be to just put a camera on the Luas or DART and just listen to snippets of people's telephone conversations. Can be comedy gold!
Brian Condron is offline  
Unread 03-04-2008, 13:44   #40
Aphfaneire
Regular Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: County louth, 6 miles from civilisation:-(
Posts: 155
Default

IT looks like we just have to wait for the rpa to go for the company dumb enough not to argue that we need bigger trains and bigger tunnels and will do it half arsed and cheaply.


Or we could get some genious's in with a mix of german and japanese know-how with endless coffers like the middle east and make a perfect system, if only
__________________
Commuting is my extra 50 minutes of sleep
Aphfaneire is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:52.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.