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

CarlosHarpic

MJohnston wrote: »

No evidence so far as with everything Metro, but it'd make a tonne of sense (of course CIE would have to enable the Whitworth stop on their lines, which may preclude sensible decisions occurring!).

I think there's enough room though, on the west side of the N2, on the side where Des Kelly currently is. Take a look on Google Maps, the section between the two rail lines is currently wide enough to house a car park, with room enough for two car lanes along the thinnest part. On the canal side, it's a bit more squeezed, but you could also stagger the platform on that side to be a slight bit further west.

This was proposed by the old P11 in the McCarthy Report years back. Always thought a station here was a great idea.

jd

From the Indo
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-dart-plan-backs-away-from-underground-route-36638480.html

..Documents seen by this newspaper show the NTA now wants to extend a Dart service from Heuston Station through the Phoenix Park Tunnel to new stops in Cabra, Glasnevin and finally the Docklands.
..
The service will link up with the Metro line at a new station at Cross Guns Bridge, on Whitworth Road in Glasnevin.
From there, the Metro will travel north to the airport or south through the city centre, including St Stephen's Green..

AngryLips

jd wrote: »

From the Indo
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-dart-plan-backs-away-from-underground-route-36638480.html

Something tells me this Metro could be under capacity very quickly

bk

AngryLips wrote: »

Something tells me this Metro could be under capacity very quickly

Yes, I was thinking this. Given this development, it will be carrying serious numbers from Whitworth in. It better be 90m stations so.

normanoffside

jd wrote: »

From the Indo
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-dart-plan-backs-away-from-underground-route-36638480.html

Will this be Darts coming from Hazelhatch or Maynooth?

Why would they be stopping in Heuston?

jd

normanoffside wrote: »

Will this be Darts coming from Hazelhatch or Maynooth?

Both, eventually, I think.

normanoffside wrote: »

Why would they be stopping in Heuston?

Don't think they will - unless they do a lot of work at Platform 10

normanoffside

jd wrote: »

Both, eventually, I think.



Don't think they will - unless they do a lot of work at Platform 10

It's a poor and confusing article in that case as it specifically states a Dart service from Heuston station.
Unless they mean some kind of interconnector service only: Heuston-Cabra-CrossGuns-Docklands.

I can't see Hazelhatch trains coming into Heuston and heading back out the way they came to the PPT?

monument

normanoffside wrote: »

It's a poor and confusing article in that case as it specially states a Dart service from Heston station.
Unless the mean some kind of interconnector service only: Heuston-Cabra-CrossGuns-Docklands.

I can't see Hazelhatch trains coming into Heuston and heading back out the way the came to the PPT?

Platform 11

normanoffside

monument wrote: »

Platform 11

So you are suggesting a new platform?

I see Platform 10 is just over 500m from the back of the station and about 700m to the Luas.
It's a long walk but I guess it's feasible?

donvito99

This is where automated trains come into their own. With no need for a driver to change ends, a kildare line - Heuston without a 700m walk - PPT - docklands becomes viable.

lucernarian

bk wrote: »

Yes, this suddenly all makes a lot more sense. 2 billion for DART upgrades seemed excessive for just new trains and electrification. But a major new station interchange at Whitworth Road and Docklands and it suddenly starts to make sense.

Folks come from Hazelhatch would then have lots of options depending on where they are going:

- Change to Luas at Hueston for Red Line Stops
- Change to Metro at Whitworth to head North to the Airport or South to OCS, Tara St, SSG
- Stay on to the Docklands area and all the business/offices around there (I suspect the actual destination for a lot of people coming in on this line for work).

I realise there sounds to be a lot of overlap there. But I suspect there would be significant differences in Journey times.

For instance if you were heading to the IFSC, then I'd expect Hueston -> Whitworth Road -> Docklands would be much faster then Hueston -> Red Luas to Docklands.

Perhaps harder to tell if Hueston -> Whitworth Road -> Metro -> OCS would be faster then the Red Line Luas, but if you were heading to SSG/Grafton Street then it may well be.

Lots of interesting connection options.

The passengers coming on the Maynooth line are far more important, both because of existing jammed trains and development potential in its own right.

Either way, a "Heuston" stop for the Newbridge-GCD route seems not so likely as things stand and the Docklands/Drumcondra rail lines are too close together for a normal station box. And the single bore tunneling mooted earlier, would make a tie-in at Charlemont even more infeasible.

spacetweek

normanoffside wrote: »

So you are suggesting a new platform?

I see Platform 10 is just over 500m from the back of the station and about 700m to the Luas.
It's a long walk but I guess it's feasible?

That’s nothing a travelator wouldn’t solve.

bk

spacetweek wrote: »

That’s nothing a travelator wouldn’t solve.

Yes, lots of people walk those sort of distances with heavy bags at Dublin Airport.

lucernarian wrote: »

Either way, a "Heuston" stop for the Newbridge-GCD route seems not so likely as things stand and the Docklands/Drumcondra rail lines are too close together for a normal station box. And the single bore tunneling mooted earlier, would make a tie-in at Charlemont even more infeasible.

Actually it looks like there is space for a 90m station box at the Tennis courts by Whitworth road with a bit of CPO of a house or two. Or alternatively at David Road, with a bit of CPO of houses.

Also lots of space in that field behind St Vincents School, next to both tracks.

Consonata

Telchak wrote: »

Made a Google map of the proposed 2040 network, for all those people who seem confused about the Luas upgrade part of the project (click through for a better look)

That map is crying out for Metro West. Its disappointing to see that its been left to the dust since that was one of the more promising projects for Dublin in my opinion. That and Metro North. The massive gap at Harolds cross really isn't acceptable, and isn't likely to be serviced till 2060 at this rate.

Stephen15

donvito99 wrote: »

This is where automated trains come into their own. With no need for a driver to change ends, a kildare line - Heuston without a 700m walk - PPT - docklands becomes viable.

Automated trains are ok on point to point systems such certain metros, light rail systems such as the DLR and people movers but on heavy rail systems with complex signalling and points systems I couldn't see them working.

Lord Glentoran

Consonata wrote: »

That map is crying out for Metro West. Its disappointing to see that its been left to the dust since that was one of the more promising projects for Dublin in my opinion. That and Metro North. The massive gap at Harolds cross really isn't acceptable, and isn't likely to be serviced till 2060 at this rate.

There is a reason for the gap at Harolds Cross, and it relates to planning decisions.

The original 1970s Dublin Rapid Transit proposals planned for a busway from Tallaght via Kimmage to Mount Argus, with buslanes covering the rest of the journey into the proposed Central Station. That busway was made impossible at some point in the eighties by planning permission being given by Dublin Corporation to develop housing in front of Mount Argus and, I think, by planning decisions in Kimmage as well.

At the very least it was a stunning lack of imagination and forward planning for the sake of short term profit taking.

Consonata

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

There is a reason for the gap at Harolds Cross, and it relates to planning decisions.

The original 1970s Dublin Rapid Transit proposals planned for a busway from Tallaght via Kimmage to Mount Argus, with buslanes covering the rest of the journey into the proposed Central Station. That busway was made impossible at some point in the eighties by planning permission being given by Dublin Corporation to develop housing in front of Mount Argus and, I think, by planning decisions in Kimmage as well.

At the very least it was a stunning lack of imagination and forward planning for the sake of short term profit taking.

Ideally there should be an orbital route going from the Dart along the bottom of UCD, connecting with Metro Link and connecting up with the Red line somewhere, perhaps Tallaght to give that area some semblence of coverage. Its really surprising that the idea has never been courted considering how poorly its serviced bus-wise and how much residential areas are there.

orangerhyme

Consonata wrote: »

Ideally there should be an orbital route going from the Dart along the bottom of UCD, connecting with Metro Link and connecting up with the Red line somewhere, perhaps Tallaght to give that area some semblence of coverage. Its really surprising that the idea has never been courted considering how poorly its serviced bus-wise and how much residential areas are there.

The plan with BusConnects is to have high frequency bus routed feeding into luas, Metro etc

strassenwo!f

I can't seem to find any definitive mention of the proposed length of the vehicles on this route, and there hasn't (as far as I can see) been much (if any) discussion of this on the board in the days since this plan came out.

It was rumoured earlier - before the plan came out - that the vehicles would be shorter than on the metro plan which had been approved some years ago.

This is obviously a critical issue in terms of capacity.

Van.Bosch

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I can't seem to find any definitive mention of the proposed length of the vehicles on this route, and there hasn't (as far as I can see) been much (if any) discussion of this on the board in the days since this plan came out.

It was rumoured earlier - before the plan came out - that the vehicles would be shorter than on the metro plan which had been approved some years ago.

This is obviously a critical issue in terms of capacity.

The plan hasn’t come out though, just a leaked route. We will have to wait until the official project is published before we see details like that.

We can then discuss it for a few years before metro link gets rebranded and launched for a 8th time, maybe as Dublin metro!

Consonata

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The plan hasn’t come out though, just a leaked route. We will have to wait until the official project is published before we see details like that.

We can then discuss it for a few years before metro link gets rebranded and launched for a 8th time, maybe as Dublin metro!

Any ETA on the final plan?

strassenwo!f

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The plan hasn’t come out though, just a leaked route. We will have to wait until the official project is published before we see details like that.

We can then discuss it for a few years before metro link gets rebranded and launched for a 8th time, maybe as Dublin metro!

You are probably right.

I'm still trying to puzzle out the logic of this plan, particularly on the southside of the city. With 90 metre vehicles it could make some sense to build a connection to the Harcourt Street line, as that would almost double the capacity at the same throughput of vehicles.

Upgrading from the current maximum length of 55 metres to a metro vehicle length of 60 metres, at the same throughput, doesn't seem to offer much more capacity.

On the other hand, building towards the south-west of the city, where it has been established that there is no potential LUAS corridor, would increase the capacity directly from a 0 (zero) metre tram to a sixty metre tram, or even, because it would be a totally new build, to a 90 metre tram. 60 metres or 90 metres, that's a huge increase in provision of rapid public transport, in an area which currently has none.

The potential throughput on the southside section of this proposed metro is thus very relevant.

If it's going to stay the same, at around 4 minutes between vehicles, with 60 metre trams, then the cost of the upgrade is simply unjustifiable. Full stop.

If it's going to stay the same, at around 4 minutes between vehicles, with 90 metre trams, there may be an arguable case for this connection and upgrade, but it is not obvious that it would achieve the improvement in rapid rail access and uptake that a line towards the south-west would or could.

And if the throughput is to be increased, to, say every two minutes, we can hopefully lay to rest any pretence that the south-west of the city might one day be served by a branch off this line, as has been mentioned in the last few pages of this thread.

donvito99

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Upgrading from the current maximum length of 55 metres to a metro vehicle length of 60 metres, at the same throughput, doesn't seem to offer much more capacity.

On the other hand, building towards the south-west of the city, where it has been established that there is no potential LUAS corridor, would increase the capacity directly from a 0 (zero) metre tram to a sixty metre tram, or even, because it would be a totally new build, to a 90 metre tram. 60 metres or 90 metres, that's a huge increase in provision of rapid public transport, in an area which currently has none.

The potential throughput on the southside section of this proposed metro is thus very relevant.

How far is this south western alignment going on the €500m that the Green Line upgrade will cost? Terenure?

donvito99

The attached link may be interesting to some, details the features of Barcelona's line 9, the single bore arrangement and its advantages particularly in terms of platform length and the relatively small footprint of stations compared with traditional methods.

http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/10/barcelonas-line-9-inspiring-montreals-pink-line/

Telchak

Do those tunnels single bore tunnels have the space for pantograph and overhead wires, that I'm assuming have to be at the same height as the current Luas ones?

donvito99

Telchak wrote: »

Do those tunnels single bore tunnels have the space for pantograph and overhead wires, that I'm assuming have to be at the same height as the current Luas ones?

Not sure of the height but it is OHLE powered

Also note the use of an overhead power to provide electricity. This is unusual for a metro, especially one which is so space-constrained: metros generally use a third rail on the ground to provide power to the trains, and overhead wires are used for more spacious main line tracks.

strassenwo!f

donvito99 wrote: »

How far is this south western alignment going on the €500m that the Green Line upgrade will cost? Terenure?

I don't yet have such figures to hand.

If you were initially going with a south-west alignment through Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Templeogue, etc., - which would not be my preference - it would hopefully be Terenure, but perhaps only Rathgar (as, for much of that, you'd still be tunnelling under very busy, difficult, parts of the city)

Then you wait for some more cash and press on, delivering rapid rail to other new areas of the city, which, I repeat, it has been determined cannot be served by the LUAS.

Sam Russell

Charlemont to Tallaght is about 6 or 7 km. That Barcelona Line 9 design could do the whole tunnel in about 2 years.

A 12 metre tunnel - how does that compare to the Port Tunnel?

The Barca tunnel is 48 km long - we are talking about less than half that if we do Airport to Charlemont and then out to Tallaght.

Even if we just did the tunnel from Charlemont to Tallaght and finished it a few years later - sounds do-able since we have to do quite a bit more even after the tunnel is finished.

marno21

If it's not in this document: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Transport_Strategy_for_the_Greater_Dublin_Area_2016-2035.pdf

Then it won't happen before 2035. When the NTA published this, it effectively became policy and what's in the document is to be prioritised. This has come to pass when you see what was included in the GDA in the Capital Plan.

ted1

Telchak wrote: »

Do those tunnels single bore tunnels have the space for pantograph and overhead wires, that I'm assuming have to be at the same height as the current Luas ones?

I would have thought they have electrified tracks