Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

Ste.phen

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd guess the station excavation will be the lengthier part of Metro North, but I don't know how fast the tunneling will be

If we can compare to the Elizabeth line / Crossrail in London (obviously a much bigger project) it looks like the tunnelling was one of the easier/shorter phases - see the timeline on http://www.crossrail.co.uk/ homepage- tunnelling finished in 2015/2016 and they’re still working on stations, connecting it to the rest of he rail network, etc

I’m guessing things are relatively straightforward once you get the TBM in the ground and the logistics sorted for for dirt/rocks out, concrete in.

Each station, connection point etc, is effectively a separate project and probably has its own crew, depots, and other challenges, while the tunnelling phase is comparatively self contained

cgcsb

The Elizabeth line is an engineering marvel, the tunnels were dug with a TBM just centimetres from existing underground lines, at points it weaves between underground lines and basements. Dublin Metro will be a much easier job for a TBM.

Dardania

cgcsb wrote: »

The Elizabeth line is an engineering marvel, the tunnels were dug with a TBM just centimetres from existing underground lines, at points it weaves between underground lines and basements. Dublin Metro will be a much easier job for a TBM.

Must have taken a a serious amount of design and pre-planning to enable such construction. Are Irish people tolerant of lengthy design times with no progress apparent to the outside world?

cgcsb

metro north was originally proposed in 1974 under a different name and at the earliest it will be delivered in 2027. Some 53 years.
So yes we are pretty tolerant. We are still using diesel locos to serve inner suburbs and we do not have integrated ticketing, we're nearly a century behind Europe in that regard, so yeah we're all about the 'design phase' here.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

metro north was originally proposed in 1974 under a different name and at the earliest it will be delivered in 2027. Some 53 years.
So yes we are pretty tolerant. We are still using diesel locos to serve inner suburbs and we do not have integrated ticketing, we're nearly a century behind Europe in that regard, so yeah we're all about the 'design phase' here.

I think 're-design' might be more like it.

strassenwo!f

cgcsb wrote: »

metro north was originally proposed in 1974 under a different name and at the earliest it will be delivered in 2027. Some 53 years. So yes we are pretty tolerant. We are still using diesel locos to serve inner suburbs and we do not have integrated ticketing, we're nearly a century behind Europe in that regard, so yeah we're all about the 'design phase' here.

Was it originally proposed then? Back in the seventies?

The DRRTS plan, produced in '74/'75, which did not include a direct link between the city and the airport/Swords? Is that the one you're talking about?

Anyway, it's worth reminding ourselves that that the whole 'metro north' phrase emerged because it had made an impression on a young Martin Cullen - later to become Minister for Transport in Ireland - when he spent a summer as a student in New York City and they were building (or possibly had just opened) a line of that name.

NYC had, of course, a pretty well developed subway at the time the future minister spent time there, but the term 'Metro North' does seem to have stuck with a young, impressionable Mr Cullen, which is why he used it as the moniker for his link between the city and the Airport/Swords.

The similarities between the transport networks in NYC and Dublin are, at best, somewhat small. That is true now, and it was also true at the time Martin Cullen was a student in Ireland and going on a J1 (or whatever the equivalent visa was at the time) to New York.

The current nomenclature for this important underground project, which seems to have been influenced greatly by the student experiences of a former Minister of Transport, should be discarded.

I would favour 'Metro North' being replaced by 'Metro'.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I would favour 'Metro North' being replaced by 'Metro'.

Or even Dart - Dublin Are Rapid Transport - that was a name also that came from the USA.

It is associated with CIE and IE, but it more accurately describes what is trying to be achieved by MN, Luas, and DU together with the existing and hopefully much expanded Dart to Maynooth, Balbriggan, and Hazlehatch.

Why do we need all these names for Public Transport?

marno21

Article on the appointment of architects to New Metro North.. https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/architects-appointed-for-metro-scheme-36398898.html

€1.05m spent on New Metro North in 2017. €700m to be spent by 2021.

Consonata

marno21 wrote:

€1.05m spent on New Metro North in 2017. €700m to be spent by 2021.

Why on earth are we spending nearly a billion redesigning a 2 billion euro project that already has a design and planning permission.....

Will_gamble

That's huge!

jamo2oo9

Consonata wrote: »

Why on earth are we spending nearly a billion redesigning a 2 billion euro project that already has a design and planning permission.....

Won't work with the luas cc in operation. There is a hole that needs to be dug out in Stephen's Green but the luas tracks are in it's place so they have to seek alternative solutions unless they want to close down the luas for a couple of months, when it has just opened there last week.

NuMarvel

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Won't work with the luas cc in operation. There is a hole that needs to be dug out in Stephen's Green but the luas tracks are in it's place so they have to seek alternative solutions unless they want to close down the luas for a couple of months, when it has just opened there last week.

Someone linked to an article a few pages back that said the NTA were looking at using Stephen's Green East for construction of the Stephen's Green station. That would avoid closing down the Luas on the Grafton Street/Dawson Street side.

cgcsb

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Won't work with the luas cc in operation. There is a hole that needs to be dug out in Stephen's Green but the luas tracks are in it's place so they have to seek alternative solutions unless they want to close down the luas for a couple of months, when it has just opened there last week.

Moving a station would only require an amendment to the planning permission. This is a redesign from scratch.

marno21

By the way, the €700m programmed up until 2021 includes funding to start construction. It's not all design funding

plodder

NuMarvel wrote: »

Someone linked to an article a few pages back that said the NTA were looking at using Stephen's Green East for construction of the Stephen's Green station. That would avoid closing down the Luas on the Grafton Street/Dawson Street side.

I seriously hope they are planning ahead for DU (in some fashion) with the Stephen's Green work for Metro.

cgcsb

plodder wrote: »

I seriously hope they are planning ahead for DU (in some fashion) with the Stephen's Green work for Metro.

:rolleyes: have you learned nothing?

roadmaster

cgcsb wrote: »

metro north was originally proposed in 1974 under a different name and at the earliest it will be delivered in 2027. Some 53 years.
So yes we are pretty tolerant. We are still using diesel locos to serve inner suburbs and we do not have integrated ticketing, we're nearly a century behind Europe in that regard, so yeah we're all about the 'design phase' here.

is there any articles about what they had planned in 74 it would be interesting to compare what they where thinking to now

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

:rolleyes: have you learned nothing?

In fairness, someone appears to be doing a certain amount of protection of DU routes, as they blocked a pedestrian bridge in the Docklands because of this.

strassenwo!f

NuMarvel wrote: »

Someone linked to an article a few pages back that said the NTA were looking at using Stephen's Green East for construction of the Stephen's Green station. That would avoid closing down the Luas on the Grafton Street/Dawson Street side.

I would doubt that there would be any need to close down the LUAS for any great length of time, if at all, during construction of a metro station at the top of Grafton Street.

There has been a bit of discussion in the last few days, on this very board, of how Crossrail is proceeding in London, with that line passing within inches of operating underground lines and no significant line closures occurring. Building a metro station under or near the current overground LUAS facilities should really not be a problem

But, of course, there may be other reasons why the powers that be might wish to build a metro station on St. Stephen's Green East - presumably somewhere around the Tonehenge monument and the Shelbourne Hotel - but it is currently hard to discern what these might be, given that such a station would be quite remote from the current LUAS location and integration of LUAS and metro wouldn't be great.

BonnieSituation

NuMarvel wrote: »

Someone linked to an article a few pages back that said the NTA were looking at using Stephen's Green East for construction of the Stephen's Green station. That would avoid closing down the Luas on the Grafton Street/Dawson Street side.

I do remember when I brought SSG East into the mix back in the summer it almost caused oul Strassenwolf to have a conniption with my "so-called info".

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I would doubt that there would be any need to close down the LUAS for any great length of time, if at all, during construction of a metro station at the top of Grafton Street.

There has been a bit of discussion in the last few days, on this very board, of how Crossrail is proceeding in London, with that line passing within inches of operating underground lines and no significant line closures occurring. Building a metro station under or near the current overground LUAS facilities should really not be a problem

But, of course, there may be other reasons why the powers that be might wish to build a metro station on St. Stephen's Green East - presumably somewhere around the Tonehenge monument and the Shelbourne Hotel - but it is currently hard to discern what these might be, given that such a station would be quite remote from the current LUAS location and integration of LUAS and metro wouldn't be great.

The reason people have suspected that the Luas Cross City tracks could block the Metro North station at SSG is because Metro North stations are excavated instead of tunnelled.

strassenwo!f

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I do remember when I brought SSG East into the mix back in the summer it almost caused oul Strassenwolf to have a conniption with my "so-called info".

If it did, it was only my concern about how it would develop an integrated public transport system for Dublin

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

The reason people have suspected that the Luas Cross City tracks could block the Metro North station at SSG is because Metro North stations are excavated instead of tunnelled.

Whatever way they do it, tunnelling or excavation, it really shouldn't be a problem to build a metro station at the top of Grafton Street, notwithstanding the presence of the overground LUAS. This kind of stuff is done all the time, everywhere.

So, given that a proposed metro station at St. Stephen's Green East would provide very poor integration with the current LUAS stop at St. Stephen's Green West, several hundred metres away, what can be the possible logic?

donvito99

strassenwo!f wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

The reason people have suspected that the Luas Cross City tracks could block the Metro North station at SSG is because Metro North stations are excavated instead of tunnelled.

Whatever way they do it, tunnelling or excavation, it really shouldn't be a problem to build a metro station at the top of Grafton Street, notwithstanding the presence of the overground LUAS. This kind of stuff is done all the time, everywhere.

So, given that a proposed metro station at St. Stephen's Green East would provide very poor integration with the current LUAS stop at St. Stephen's Green West, several hundred metres away, what can be the possible logic?

There really is not enough space to sufficiently/easily/inexpensively excavate on Grafton street or next to the Luas. The original MN proposal proposed to dig up a vast swathe of the green around the fusiliers arch.

If you are to tie the green line in as Metro South of ranelagh, why not spend a little more (in the grand scheme of a €2.5bn project) sending the existing green line around the Southside of the green to Earlsfort terrace?

TBH, the connection isn't particularly taxing and could be made where ever the OCS stop ends up. Metro shouldn't be kowtowing to the luas -- the tail shouldn't wag the dog.

CatInABox

donvito99 wrote: »

There really is not enough space to sufficiently/easily/inexpensively excavate on Grafton street or next to the Luas. The original MN proposal proposed to dig up a vast swathe of the green around the fusiliers arch.

This is the likely reasoning behind it. The more complicated the surface work, the harder and more expensive the project becomes.

Personally speaking, I have no issue with it being on the east side of SSG, but they really should have a tunnel going from the station to closer to the Luas stop. Walking the length of SSG isn't a hardship, there's plenty of stations on the London Underground with a longer walk.

Personally speaking, I'm behind any decision that gets Dublin Metro built quickly, and built to a relatively high standard of operation. Would I prefer a combined stop at the Luas, yes, definitely, but if they think that the east side of SSG will get it through planning and built faster, then yes, go for it.

strassenwo!f

donvito99 wrote: »

There really is not enough space to sufficiently/easily/inexpensively excavate on Grafton street or next to the Luas. The original MN proposal proposed to dig up a vast swathe of the green around the fusiliers arch.

I think we can forget the original proposal, which would have torn up much of St. Stephen's Green. It is obvious, and it has always been obvious, that if the initial metro line is built, it will be continued to locations on the Southside.

donvito99 wrote: »

If you are to tie the green line in as Metro South of ranelagh, why not spend a little more (in the grand scheme of a €2.5bn project) sending the existing green line around the Southside of the green to Earlsfort terrace?

There is, of course, the question of whether you want to extend the metro southward along the LUAS Green line, where you would have to upgrade the line to metro standard in its entirety for it to be properly functional, and thus improving an existing line, or whether Dublin would prefer to build towards the southwest, probably incrementally, towards areas which don't have LUAS or metro level transport.

I favour the latter.

The time to start upgrading is when pretty well everybody in the city has decent access to the centre. Not when there are large swathes of the city which do not have rapid, direct access to the centre.

Upgrading of Dublin's LUAS lines should be many years down the line

donvito99

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There is, of course, the question of whether you want to extend the metro southward along the LUAS Green line, where you would have to upgrade the line to metro standard in its entirety for it to be properly functional, and thus improving an existing line, or whether Dublin would prefer to build towards the southwest, probably incrementally, towards areas which don't have LUAS or metro level transport.

I favour the latter.

The time to start upgrading is when pretty well everybody in the city has decent access to the centre. Not when there are large swathes of the city which do not have rapid, direct access to the centre.

Upgrading of Dublin's LUAS lines should be many years down the line

It's not that I don't favour some future extension to the South West, but this is apples and oranges.

What modifications to the Green line are required? To descend into a portal somewhere at Charlemont would require the loss of about 6 houses according to Engineers Ireland in addition to the entirity of the former Irish Nationwide site. Every platform would have to be enlarged. Crossings at Beechwood/Stillorgan would have to be eliminated/ameliorated. Other than new vehicles, little else is required. The track, trackbed, power supply and depot are all there. So for very little additional investment you'd easily see the 9,000 pph go to 18,000 pph. If that can be done as €2-300m on top of the existing MN proposal then we're laughing. An entirely new alignment towards the South West would take an additional 18,000 pph from other modes in an area unserved by any rapid transit... for billions more. The two projects are incomparable in terms of the scope of this discussion.

Saying that we shouldn't upgrade an existing alignment that we've built to an inferior capacity at great expense when we have the opportunity to do so given that the boring machines will be in the ground and will only have to travel an additional 800m or so is insane.

Reuben1210

MJohnston wrote: »

In fairness, someone appears to be doing a certain amount of protection of DU routes, as they blocked a pedestrian bridge in the Docklands because of this.

And this issue earlier in the year...


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dart-underground-could-be-derailed-by-plans-for-office-block-1.2958453

lateconnection

What are the chances that the route will be announced this side of Christmas?

Or will we have to wait until January?

not1but4

donvito99 wrote: »

To descend into a portal somewhere at Charlemont would require the loss of about 6 houses according to Engineers Ireland in addition to the entirity of the former Irish Nationwide site.

They cannot do anything to the office block there as it's bizarrely a listed building.

The seven-storey over basement listed building at Grand Parade, Dublin 6

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/13m-for-former-irish-nationwide-hq-1.1554012

Just out of curiosity where did you find out that 6 houses would needed to be lost at Charlemont?