|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
24-03-2008, 02:31 | #21 | |
Local Liaison Officer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
|
Low-capacity design favoured for Metro North
Quote:
|
|
24-03-2008, 04:51 | #22 | |
New to the board
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1
|
Quote:
|
|
25-03-2008, 11:47 | #23 |
Really Regular Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 585
|
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?! |
25-03-2008, 13:38 | #24 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern line
Posts: 1,311
|
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. |
25-03-2008, 15:06 | #25 |
Regular Poster
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Clonsilla
Posts: 65
|
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. |
25-03-2008, 15:49 | #26 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern line
Posts: 1,311
|
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. |
25-03-2008, 15:52 | #27 |
Technical Officer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Coach C, Seat 33
Posts: 12,669
|
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
__________________
Unhappy with new timetable - let us know Last edited by Mark Gleeson : 25-03-2008 at 15:57. |
25-03-2008, 20:06 | #28 |
Local Liaison Officer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
|
The best was to do alternatives in tendering is to get everyone to tender for both options, with one being a preferred option.
|
27-03-2008, 19:15 | #29 |
Really Really Regluar Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,371
|
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. |
27-03-2008, 19:51 | #30 |
Regular Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 49
|
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 |
28-03-2008, 15:13 | #31 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
|
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:
|
|
28-03-2008, 16:34 | #32 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern line
Posts: 1,311
|
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. |
30-03-2008, 13:38 | #33 |
Local Liaison Officer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
|
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. |
01-04-2008, 15:28 | #34 | |
Really Really Regluar Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
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. |
|
01-04-2008, 19:43 | #35 |
Local Liaison Officer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
|
|
03-04-2008, 03:00 | #36 |
Really Really Regluar Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,371
|
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.
|
03-04-2008, 03:06 | #37 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 95
|
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. |
03-04-2008, 09:12 | #38 |
Chairman/Publicity
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Home of Hurling
Posts: 2,708
|
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.
|
03-04-2008, 10:15 | #39 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 268
|
Quote:
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! |
|
03-04-2008, 13:44 | #40 |
Regular Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: County louth, 6 miles from civilisation:-(
Posts: 155
|
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|