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

lucernarian

D.L.R. wrote: »

Question answers itself. And 30% sounds conservative.

Not at all! We could increase the capacity of this major project for 78 million... By 50% beyond what's being talked about now. This talk of enhancing the green line at considerably higher cost than 78 million is just hubris IMO.

AngryLips

I agree, I feel like the talk of enhancing the green line is just a way to distract from the fact that it is effectively kicking a perfectly good can down the road

bk

It would be far more then a 30% increase.

The frequency of the green line is greatly impacted by the street running sections north of Ranelagh. Cut these sections off and the Metro could likely run at least every 90 seconds, if not 60 seconds.

That would a doubling if not tripling of capacity along the line. The people living along this line would love that.

Also don't forget wider trains, would increase capacity too and we are hoping that we get 90m trains rather then crappy 60m compromise.

It little bit of CPOing seem well worth it for all that.

As an aside, we Irish people really need to get over our hang up's about CPOing land. It just needs to be done for the greater good.

D.L.R.

lucernarian wrote: »

Not at all! We could increase the capacity of this major project for 78 million... By 50% beyond what's being talked about now.

How?

bk

AngryLips wrote: »

I agree, I feel like the talk of enhancing the green line is just a way to distract from the fact that it is effectively kicking a perfectly good can down the road

As has been pointed out, the original plan can't go ahead anyway, due to the stations were planned to be beneath the Luas Cross City line. It would be way too disruptive to build the original plan now unfortunately.

So either way it needed to be redesigned, might as well gain some benefit from that.

AngryLips

It can go ahead. The luas can operate without Stephen's Green for a while. There are depots at both ends. Turnback facilities could be built to facilitate. Of course it would be disruptive, but there will be disruption in the city centre anyway regardless from this project. Dublin needs good infrastructure now more than it needs improved infrastructure in the far future.

bk

AngryLips wrote: »

It can go ahead. The luas can operate without Stephen's Green for a while. There are depots at both ends. Turnback facilities could be built to facilitate. Of course it would be disruptive, but there will be disruption in the city centre anyway regardless from this project. Dublin needs good infrastructure now more than it needs improved infrastructure in the far future.

Where exactly would you put turn back facilities in the heart of the city north of Stephens Green!!

Stephens Green is one of the Green Lines most important stops, you are talking about taking it out for years and cutting the Green Line in two :rolleyes:

And don't forget that it also included station boxes under O'Connell Bridge and O'Connell Street too. So you would have to shut almost the entire LCC section!

What Dublin needs is high quality infrastructure that will last 100 years. What we don't need is more half arsed solutions which open at capacity.

AngryLips

Any metro through the city centre is going to require station boxes and involve a lot of disruption, and the original MN would have required putting Stephen's Green Luas stop out of action also.

And since when was original MN a half arsed solution?

MJohnston

I keep stating this again and again, but there's a point people keep overlooking - a project that includes both Metro North and the Metro South upgrade is probably more likely to have the political capital to get the go-ahead than a project that is just Metro North on its own.

Even though the single project is a bit of a cheaper one (though relatively speaking, not that much cheaper), including the south upgrade encompasses more potential voters in its radius of influence, and especially those more wealthy southside voters that the pols love to court.

bk

AngryLips wrote: »

Any metro through the city centre is going to require station boxes and involve a lot of disruption, and the original MN would have required putting Stephen's Green Luas stop out of action also.

Of course, but a redesigned route can avoid putting those stations boxes right on the Luas tracks, thus requiring LCC to be shutdown.

From the proposed new stops that have been rumoured, it looks like they avoid LCC completely and disruption overall will be minimal in the core city center. Basically the worst of it will be just one station box on the other side of O'Connell St.

By comparison the monstrous station under O'Connell Bridge in the original design would have required massive disruption to both O'Connell Bridge and the quays both side.

AngryLips wrote: »

And since when was original MN a half arsed solution?

Nothing, it was a great idea, though perhaps too complicated in places (e.g. massive stations under O'Connell Bridge and Stephens Green) and it should have gone ahead.

I meant the idea of shutting down and digging up almost the entire core section of LCC mere months after it was built.

The situation is what we have now and we have to move forward based on that. I agree completely with MJohnston that tying in a Green Line upgrade will also make the entire project far more palatable and likely to actually happen.

D.L.R.

Original Metro North was half arsed in the sense that it and the Green line weren't planned as a single metro line all along.

lucernarian

bk wrote: »

As has been pointed out, the original plan can't go ahead anyway, due to the stations were planned to be beneath the Luas Cross City line. It would be way too disruptive to build the original plan now unfortunately.

So either way it needed to be redesigned, might as well gain some benefit from that.

That was obvious from the get go, and yet people here disagreed that this would happen when Luas BXD would be built! It is myopic to support a scheme with platform lengths only a bit longer than the existing Luas can support.

The existing scheme is the best one precisely because it has already been costed and approved. We're still at crayon drawing stage with a potentially very expensive revision. Why compromise on the O'Connell Street station, the platform lengths, on street running on Ballymun Road... So we can eliminate on street running In a different part of the city? That is the definition of insanity. "Unfortunately" many people on this forum closed their eyes to the inevitable issue of tracks lying right on top of stations that had yet to be dug.

Also the AECOM report that resulted in the change didn't even account for Luas BXD in the original or revised design evaluations, yet it was blindly accepted as fact by the Dept. The consultants and officials working on these things have continued the gravy train with yet another questionable redesign.

Winters

D.L.R. wrote: »

Original Metro North was half arsed in the sense that it and the Green line weren't planned as a single metro line all along.

In fairness the DTO under John Henry did envisage using the old Harcourt and Broadstone alignments for metro (Platform for Change) but once Luas looked like all we could afford and moved from Irish Rail to under the auspices of the Rail Procurement Agency then its scope was set.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/platform_for_change_2001.pdf

(Figure 4.4 on page 27 has a good capacity comparison)

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

That was obvious from the get go, and yet people here disagreed that this would happen when Luas BXD would be built! It is myopic to support a scheme with platform lengths only a bit longer than the existing Luas can support.

The existing scheme is the best one precisely because it has already been costed and approved. We're still at crayon drawing stage with a potentially very expensive revision. Why compromise on the O'Connell Street station, the platform lengths, on street running on Ballymun Road... So we can eliminate on street running In a different part of the city? That is the definition of insanity. "Unfortunately" many people on this forum closed their eyes to the inevitable issue of tracks lying right on top of stations that had yet to be dug.

Also the AECOM report that resulted in the change didn't even account for Luas BXD in the original or revised design evaluations, yet it was blindly accepted as fact by the Dept. The consultants and officials working on these things have continued the gravy train with yet another questionable redesign.

Because you're not taking the factor MJohnston made above into account.

MJohnston wrote: »

I keep stating this again and again, but there's a point people keep overlooking - a project that includes both Metro North and the Metro South upgrade is probably more likely to have the political capital to get the go-ahead than a project that is just Metro North on its own.

Even though the single project is a bit of a cheaper one (though relatively speaking, not that much cheaper), including the south upgrade encompasses more potential voters in its radius of influence, and especially those more wealthy southside voters that the pols love to court.

lucernarian wrote: »

The existing scheme is the best one precisely because it has already been costed and approved.

It's really not, it lacks the range and connectivity of what's apparently about to be outlined publicly for the new project.

lucernarian wrote: »

Why compromise on the O'Connell Street station

Because, for example, a Tara Street station could be better because it would cost far less, impact public transport hardly at all at construction, and would be a Dart interchange closer to the middle of the city.

lucernarian wrote: »

the platform lengths,

I don't think ABP will allow the shorter platforms to pass (if they are still being suggested???).

lucernarian wrote: »

on street running on Ballymun Road...

4-5 cut and cover junctions would solve that problem without having to have underground stations etc.

lucernarian wrote: »

"Unfortunately" many people on this forum closed their eyes to the inevitable issue of tracks lying right on top of stations that had yet to be dug.

We're just talking about two metro stops and I understand it's technically possable to build the old stations and BXD was built to allow for the metro stops without shutting down Luas.... or maybe the extra strengthening never went in around the two stops in question?

donvito99

If a station is to be built at SSG East, it would cost probably less than €20m to bring the Luas down to Earlsfort terrace/leeson st for a seamless tie in.

Why there is an insistence on moving a mountain by building in the north west of the green is the real mystery here.

D.L.R.

CHARLEMONT - SSGE - TARA - SPIRE - MATER

Now that would be a smart route. Tara and Spire quite close together but its justified in this case.

Winters

That was the intention back 17 years ago. If you are connecting with the DART axis at Drumcondra (Line 1) and St. Stephen's Green (Line 2) then a connection at Tara Street isnt actually necessary but to avoid digging up the Luas Green line at St Stephen's Green West and O'Connell Street that idea may be valid again.

Thich Nhat Hanh

Long time reader on this forum. Ok so if MN ever happens we’re looking at 10 years until it happens? Will there be nothing done to improve PT in the meantime? The city will fall apart!

AngryLips

Thich Nhat Hanh wrote: »

Long time reader on this forum. Ok so if MN ever happens we’re looking at 10 years until it happens? Will there be nothing done to improve PT in the meantime? The city will fall apart!

Bus Connect

Ernest

Thich Nhat Hanh wrote: »

Long time reader on this forum. Ok so if MN ever happens we’re looking at 10 years until it happens? Will there be nothing done to improve PT in the meantime? The city will fall apart!

What is "PT" ????????

mfceiling

Ernest wrote: »

What is "PT" ????????

Public transport

CreativeSen

Winters wrote: »

That was the intention back 17 years ago. If you are connecting with the DART axis at Drumcondra (Line 1) and St. Stephen's Green (Line 2) then a connection at Tara Street isnt actually necessary but to avoid digging up the Luas Green line at St Stephen's Green West and O'Connell Street that idea may be valid again.

I was thinking the same.

Current revised plan has MN intersecting Luas (SSG and OCS) and the main line at Drumcondra but it doesnt intersect with Dart. I thought it would be smart to connect at Connolly but I believe that is not a runner due to congestion there?

Considering that most trains that go to Connolly also go to Tara and GCD, is there not a similar level of congestion?

Would the upgrading of the Maynooth line to Dart be pushed through faster to allow for interconnection with MN at Drumcondra?

MJohnston

You can't connect to Connolly and have stations at SSG and OCS - even if you left out OCS, the curve of the tunnel would be too extreme to go from SSG to Connolly to the proposed Mater stop. O'Connell and Tara Street are the intended Metro-DART connections.

Ultimately New Metro North has never been shown to the public in a form other than marketing graphics - we have no real idea yet of exact station locations or layouts, or indeed track routes.

BonnieSituation

MJohnston wrote: »

You can't connect to Connolly and have stations at SSG and OCS - even if you left out OCS, the curve of the tunnel would be too extreme to go from SSG to Connolly to the proposed Mater stop. O'Connell and Tara Street are the intended Metro-DART connections.

Ultimately New Metro North has never been shown to the public in a form other than marketing graphics - we have no real idea yet of exact station locations or layouts, or indeed track routes.

Outside of what I quoted earlier in the summer...

Heartbreak Hank

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Outside of what I quoted earlier in the summer...

Any more teasers for us???

BonnieSituation

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

Any more teasers for us???

Unfortunately not my friend. I no longer work in that office.

However I need to lean on them to get some datasets in the coming week so I'll see what i can muster.

Idbatterim

lads a big hypothetical here, but if you could turn back the clock, would it have made sense for the government to purchase the appollo and college house and department of health block to have the next metro stop after SSG there? then connect it to OCS by underground walkway tunnels with travelators.

connected to tara street by again underground pedestrian tunnel, could that have saved a fortune on MN and DU?

sell off the site when construction is complete or develop it themselves...

Middle Man

MJohnston wrote: »

You can't connect to Connolly and have stations at SSG and OCS - even if you left out OCS, the curve of the tunnel would be too extreme to go from SSG to Connolly to the proposed Mater stop. O'Connell and Tara Street are the intended Metro-DART connections.

Ultimately New Metro North has never been shown to the public in a form other than marketing graphics - we have no real idea yet of exact station locations or layouts, or indeed track routes.

The at-grade section through Ballymun is laughable - hopefully when the finer details are being teased out, that section will go underground. Also, let's hope the platforms go back to 90m (at the very least). If we're going to do the metro, we need to do it right!

wakka12

Idbatterim wrote: »

lads a big hypothetical here, but if you could turn back the clock, would it have made sense for the government to purchase the appollo and college house and department of health block to have the next metro stop after SSG there? then connect it to OCS by underground walkway tunnels with travelators.

connected to tara street by again underground pedestrian tunnel, could that have saved a fortune on MN and DU?

sell off the site when construction is complete or develop it themselves...

That sounds really interesting

Stephen15

Middle Man wrote: »

The at-grade section through Ballymun is laughable - hopefully when the finer details are being teased out, that section will go underground. Also, let's hope the platforms go back to 90m (at the very least). If we're going to do the metro, we need to do it right!

Exactly I also think the platforms should also be as high as a Dart platform rather than Luas platforms. This would mean that the bogie alignment wouldn't interfere with the seating arrangement. If the plan was upgrade the Green line to metro they should have built the green line to the same height as The Manchester Metrolink platforms .