Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…137138140142143…314

Comments

  • #4172
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,192 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    And I never suggested anything of the political side you just sidelined the discussion.

    You asked me a question and I replied to your question. I never accused you of suggesting anything. Then you edited the original question and now you are trying to claim I'm sidelining the discussion. Seriously, get a grip on yourself. This is pathetic stuff. MN/MS - Won't happen because it won't be funded. Argue that point because its the most important one.


  • #4173
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    I see there's editing of posts to suit agendas. Bottom line lads if the money isn't provided you can talk all day long about your plans and wishes. Politics is the most important part of any Metro plan. So far politics has failed to deliver.

    Note the time of the edit and the time of your post and as they say over at wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith


    We are well aware of the the political stumbling blocks to this projects. We've all been around the block many times. What however you can't do is decided to randomly discuss the politics of this project when asked about are the physical possibilities of the project and expect everyone to follow your meaning.


  • #4174
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    You asked me a question and I replied to your question. I never accused you of suggesting anything. Then you edited the original question and now you are trying to claim I'm sidelining the discussion. Seriously, get a grip on yourself. This is pathetic stuff. MN/MS - Won't happen because it won't be funded. Argue that point because its the most important one.
    My original question was "Why not?" and hasn't been edited.


  • #4175
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    No it won't. You are in dreamland if you think it will.

    No what won't? That doesn't make any sense as a response to my post!


  • #4176
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,192 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Note the time of the edit and the time of your post and as they say over at wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith


    We are well aware of the the political stumbling blocks to this projects. We've all been around the block many times. What however you can't do is decided to randomly discuss the politics of this project when asked about are the physical possibilities of the project and expect everyone to follow your meaning.

    Your confused. I have clearly stated more than once that I have no problem with the PHYSICAL POSSIBILITIES. My negative stance is based on the POLITICAL/HISTORICAL side of things. That is a relevant and valid point based on the thread and its title and worthy of discussion. Do not try to showhorn me into the very specific aspects of your current discussion about Metro.


  • Advertisement
  • #4177
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,192 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    MJohnston wrote: »
    No what won't? That doesn't make any sense as a response to my post!

    New MN won't be built. MS won't be planned or built within the current time frames and beyond. Is that clear enough for you?


  • #4178
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Your confused. I have clearly stated more than once that I have no problem with the PHYSICAL POSSIBILITIES. My negative stance is based on the POLITICAL/HISTORICAL side of things. That is a relevant and valid point based on the thread and its title and worthy of discussion. Do not try to showhorn me into the very specific aspects of your current discussion about Metro.

    I'm not trying to shoehorn you any where.


  • #4179
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    New MN won't be built. MS won't be planned or built within the current time frames and beyond. Is that clear enough for you?

    So you think Metro South is less likely to happen than NMN?


  • #4180
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,192 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    MJohnston wrote: »
    So you think Metro South is less likely to happen than NMN?

    Read my responses to you.


  • #4181
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Read my responses to you.

    They don't include that answer.


  • Advertisement
  • #4182
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,192 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    MJohnston wrote: »
    They don't include that answer.

    They do, unless you want to continue being pedantic with the introduction of the words "less likely".


  • #4183
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    They do, unless you want to continue being pedantic with the introduction of the words "less likely".

    Given that is the thrust of the original discussion you replied to, then yes, I do want to continue being pedantic about it.

    Strassenwolf originally claimed that "there is no way that an upgrade of the current Green line to metro standard is going to happen while the metro north line is being built" (note that the premise that Metro in any form would progress is already a given in this particular discussion), then LeinsterDub asked "Why not?", and that's when you came in and said it was obvious why not, but the only thing you've said since is that the whole Metro project is never going to happen, not why the Metro South upgrade is less likely than the rest.


  • #4184
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Your confused. I have clearly stated more than once that I have no problem with the PHYSICAL POSSIBILITIES. My negative stance is based on the POLITICAL/HISTORICAL side of things. That is a relevant and valid point based on the thread and its title and worthy of discussion. Do not try to showhorn me into the very specific aspects of your current discussion about Metro.

    No, the purpose of this thread is to assume it will be built and to discuss the specific aspects of it.


  • #4185
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    I know MN is a pipe dream but people going on about Metro bloody South is just absolutely ridiculous! We may as well be talking about flying cars in the 25th century ffs. Too many of our politicians are from rural one off housing car-centric Ireland and therefore none of this stuff will ever happen unless there's a massive change in how our politics works, and that will never happen. Parish pump all the way, and unneeded bypasses for all Independents so we can form Governments.


  • #4186
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    The place is a kip . WHat we need metro north. What we got. A joke project like Luas cross city with has shut down the quays!

    We should have our own mayor and The wealth Dublin generates should be kept within Dublin!

    I hope the capacity issues of lcc mean they don't be even raise our blood pressure with the proposed 60m platforms! I mean it should have nothing to do with lcc anyway as it's beyond comprehension. Should we even be attempting to build a "metro " if this is the level things are operating at?


  • #4187
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    This question is obviously off the wall and won't happen but, assume they did go with the original project and made that decision tomorrow. How long would it take to start construction and roughly when would it end ?


  • #4188
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    This question is obviously off the wall and won't happen but, assume they did go with the original project and made that decision tomorrow. How long would it take to start construction and roughly when would it end ?

    You'd probably be looking at 2030 or something along those lines, but that's really optimistic.


  • #4189
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    The place is a kip . WHat we need metro north. What we got. A joke project like Luas cross city with has shut down the quays!

    We should have our own mayor and The wealth Dublin generates should be kept within Dublin!

    I hope the capacity issues of lcc mean they don't be even raise our blood pressure with the proposed 60m platforms! I mean it should have nothing to do with lcc anyway as it's beyond comprehension. Should we even be attempting to build a "metro " if this is the level things are operating at?

    Luas Cross City was needed regardless and the changes on the quays to move priority away from cars was also needed.

    While I support having Dart and Metro, sustainable surface transport (ie walking, cycling, buses and trams) will continue to carry far more people.


  • #4190
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    You'd probably be looking at 2030 or something along those lines, but that's really optimistic.

    No, that's the opposite of optimistic.

    If they proceeded with the originally granted railway order for Metro North, it could probably be built and operational by 2023, given they're targeting a 5 year build for New Metro North.


  • #4191
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    MJohnston wrote: »
    No, that's the opposite of optimistic.

    If they proceeded with the originally granted railway order for Metro North, it could probably be built and operational by 2023, given they're targeting a 5 year build for New Metro North.

    Yeah but they didn't proceed with that! So given the ineptness of the whole idea so far, 2030 would be miraculous in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #4192
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Yeah but they didn't proceed with that! So given the ineptness of the whole idea so far, 2030 would be miraculous in my opinion.

    Read the question asked, which was specifically about proceeding with the already granted permission.

    But even if we're taking about New Metro North, 2030 as a prediction is not optimistic, it's deeply cynical and pessimistic.


  • #4193
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Read the question asked, which was specifically about proceeding with the already granted permission.

    But even if we're taking about New Metro North, 2030 as a prediction is not optimistic, it's deeply cynical and pessimistic.

    Ok we're all friends here! When do you think it will be built by?


  • #4194
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Ok we're all friends here! When do you think it will be built by?

    I think the projected finish date is 2026. Accounting for some delays (fiver says they'll propose on-street running via Ballymun again and then will have to change it after public consultation, they will probably have to CPO a row of houses near Charlemont etc.), end of 2027 would be a reasonable estimate. Assuming the current government stays in power until at least 2021. I believe there's €600-700m set aside for planning, design and initial construction until 2021.


  • #4195
    CreativeSen
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭CreativeSen


    Peregrine wrote: »
    they will probably have to CPO a row of houses near Charlemont etc.),

    Why do you think this will be the case?


  • #4196
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,440 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    CreativeSen wrote: »
    Why do you think this will be the case?

    To fit in a tunnel portal for the Metro conversion of the Green Line


  • #4197
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,808 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    What would make sense would be to do Swords - Airport - Ballymun first. They would need a depot at the Airport anyway, and could start service early. Running through Ballymun could be done as cut and cover or elevated. The London Dockland LR manages with no tunnels - well they are doing their first tunnel now.

    Is the design for a single tunnel or twin tunnels? A single tunnel the size of each bore of the Port Tunnel would accommodate two tracks and even the stations, with a bit of digging out. We are talking about 10 km tunnel, even going out to the M50 only takes it to 15 km.

    (I have no experience of this kind of stuff so I might be talking ****** but would like to know the answers).


  • #4198
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    What would make sense would be to do Swords - Airport - Ballymun first. They would need a depot at the Airport anyway, and could start service early. Running through Ballymun could be done as cut and cover or elevated. The London Dockland LR manages with no tunnels - well they are doing their first tunnel now.

    Is the design for a single tunnel or twin tunnels? A single tunnel the size of each bore of the Port Tunnel would accommodate two tracks and even the stations, with a bit of digging out. We are talking about 10 km tunnel, even going out to the M50 only takes it to 15 km.

    (I have no experience of this kind of stuff so I might be talking ****** but would like to know the answers).
    To surface at Ballymun you need a portal south of Ballymun and a reentry portal North. Surely it would be easier to just go that 1.5 k underground.


  • #4199
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Ok we're all friends here! When do you think it will be built by?

    Well I already responded to Idbatterim's question about Original Metro North, but in terms of New Metro North, I think an optimistic outcome would be that the extra selling points that the relatively cheap Metro South upgrades bring to the table encourage things along to a point where construction is starting maybe a year earlier than currently scheduled, so around 2020, and the North section is finished by mid-2025.

    A very over-optimistic outcome is that they decide to proceed with Original Metro North before the railway order expires next year.


  • #4200
    CreativeSen
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭CreativeSen


    marno21 wrote: »
    To fit in a tunnel portal for the Metro conversion of the Green Line

    Im confused, apologies. Is the metro conversion of the green line not "Metro South" and is that not a different (as yet unplanned and unbudgeted) proposal to Metro North. So why would they need to stall Metro North for that?


  • Advertisement
  • #4201
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,808 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    To surface at Ballymun you need a portal south of Ballymun and a reentry portal North. Surely it would be easier to just go that 1.5 k underground.

    What I am suggesting is to do Swords to the Airport (surface running) and then go as far south as is surface running. This would be brought into operation as soon as is ready. Tunneling could be done as phase two, and may even be started at the same time but I would expect it to take longer. They need a depot near the airport anyway, so that would be part of phase 1 anyway.

    To tunnel from the M50 near the airport to the M50 south of Rathfarnum is only 15 km. If they could get away with a single bore like the port tunnel, it is less tunnelling than the port tunnel (18km).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement