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

AAAAAAAAA

bk wrote: »

Yes, at O'Connell St, Tara and SSG. The rest should be fine. But then another downside is that it would mean more digging up of those streets and disturbance.

BTW one other thing about the OCS stop, I don't see how it can be built without closing down LCC at that point, at least temporarily!

Unless they build a short section of Luas track further West or East to go round it.

nta should take advantage of the deep excavations to occur in the dublin central project immediately adjacent to their proposed ocs station, simply move it into the footprint of that site and there is no disruption required for bus/luas/overground transportation during the top-down construction

Zebra3

I hope as wider plans for the metro that some of the north side stations have space allocated outside for mini bus stations as there will have to be a reworking of bus routes to feed commuters into the metro.

There should also be an express route planned to connect with the northern rail line. Maybe even connect with a new station if it means avoiding some existing bottleneck of a village.

D.L.R.

They'll have to account for Dart U when designing the SSG Metro station. Seems they've sidestepped that issue for now, but that's no great surprise with DU under review.

According to the timeline, detailed design for Metro is max 18 months away. They'll have to show their hand on DU before then.

(I'm not calling it Metrolink btw, yuck)

Idbatterim

one of the posters here said that there is only one location that the stop can go in Dublin airport, is that true and if so, where is it?

Brian CivilEng

Idbatterim wrote: »

one of the posters here said that there is only one location that the stop can go in Dublin airport, is that true and if so, where is it?

It's the area marked as T2 Surface car park here:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4282775,-6.2404839,18z

bk

Synode wrote: »

Anyone know will the route open up much land for development of houses?

Yes a great deal. This is one of the major goals of this plan.

At least 40,000 population increase planned for the Swords area and tens of thousands more apartments along the Green line to the south of the City.

murphaph

I hope they plan a cross platform change for onward travel at Sandyford. You should get off metro and walk across (covered) platform to tram. There's no excuse for this interchange being anything other than totally seamless.

cgcsb

DART u interchange will be no probs. You'll have a DART station at the north of Stephen's Green and a simple pedestrian tunnel to the metro station and a simple pedestrian tunnel to a surface exist somewhere near the former luas terminus on Stephen's Green.

It'd be pretty cool if post construction we added more pedestrian portals to city centre stations for example connecting O'Connell st to the basement of Dublin Central and one from Tara to Abbey/St and the new Clearys development basement. Eventually developing something the underground pedestrian networks they have in Canadaian cities, which developed organically due to extreme weather of course, and would be well used here on a wet day.

CarlosHarpic

The Ambassador Cinema would make a magnificent metro station entrance. Wide doorway You arrive from the airport and walk out of this stunning Victorian architecture with the Green line right there. It could be superb.

Hope they CP it. Large concourse inside. It's perfect.

D.L.R.

murphaph wrote: »

I hope they plan a cross platform change for onward travel at Sandyford. You should get off metro and walk across (covered) platform to tram. There's no excuse for this interchange being anything other than totally seamless.

Yes and should eliminate "Stillorgan" and a few other stops altogether.

mickmmc

Looking at the map the Estuary P & R is in Lissenhall.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we junk the talk of junkies - they have no relevance here.

Posts deleted.

marno21

Evil transport chiefs to appear in front of transport committee after publishing destructive Metro plans designed to disrupt GAA clubs and demolish residences

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/metro-link-plan-causing-concern-among-generations-of-people-1.3438264

It's going to be a long few years..

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

Evil transport chiefs to appear in front of transport committee after publishing destructive Metro plans designed to disrupt GAA clubs and demolish residences

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/metro-link-plan-causing-concern-among-generations-of-people-1.3438264

It's going to be a long few years..

The very fact that all this info was actually stood over by a national transport agency cannot inspire any confidence that this latest version of Metro will be built. Classic Irish tactics. Pick a GAA club to bulldoze along with some pricey gaffs and into planning hell we go. Result? Either nothing or kick the can down the road planning nightmare scenario that ends up delivering little. Honestly Marno, you need to get the history book out.

LoMismo

Grandeeod wrote: »

The very fact that all this info was actually stood over by a national transport agency cannot inspire any confidence that this latest version of Metro will be built. Classic Irish tactics. Pick a GAA club to bulldoze along with some pricey gaffs and into planning hell we go. Result? Either nothing or kick the can down the road planning nightmare scenario that ends up delivering little. Honestly Marno, you need to get the history book out.

Yeah, it says properties will need to be demolished in Dartmouth Square. LOL. Those people would have more influence on this country than our cabinet.
I can't see this happening, I hope I'm proven wrong.

sdanseo

bk wrote: »

They go into exahusting detail on the different types of tunnels options and station building techniques and all the pros and cons of each. It is super interesting geeky stuff if you are curious.

Thanks for all the info - sadly I may spend an unhealthy portion of my weekend in full geek mode alright

bk wrote: »

For Celbridge to DCU?

No you don't, Celbridge to Whitworth Road, change there for Metro to DCU, easy.

That is my point, when you sit down and start thinking about a bunch of the journeys you might take under DU and then think about them under the new plan, most of them are much the same.

The problem I see with Whitworth, while it is a great interchange, is that the single line from there to Connolly, combined with the impossibility of running North/Southwestern -> Northern line direct services, severely constrains what can be offered. If everyone coming from the North who wants to go West has to change at Connolly and reverse back out, so to speak, it adds to the demand on the bottleneck. Assuming these services also use the loopline, it restricts that too.

Same thing for those coming from the West into Connolly or Pearse as PPT services currently do. They take away from potential capacity by hogging the bottlenecked section.

DU makes all the right connections and isn't comparable to any level of upgrade of DART services that exclude quad-tracking across the Liffey or enabling movement from the Northwestern/Southwestern lines to the Northern/Southern lines.

D14Rugby

LoMismo wrote: »

Yeah, it says properties will need to be demolished in Dartmouth Square. LOL. Those people would have more influence on this country than our cabinet.
I can't see this happening, I hope I'm proven wrong.

They shouldn't though? Maybe some gardens near Dartmouth square buteven then since the green line in metro ready around there they shouldn't need to

Middle Man

LoMismo wrote: »

Yeah, it says properties will need to be demolished in Dartmouth Square. LOL. Those people would have more influence on this country than our cabinet.
I can't see this happening, I hope I'm proven wrong.

Such situations demonstrate quite clearly why our property systems needs a radical overhaul - it's an embarrassing relic at this stage and it cannot be doing our image abroad much good - especially with people dying on the streets in what is supposed to be a modern country. Also, these unrealistically high rents (resulting from bloated property values) might be seen as more leprechaun (make believe) economics - if we as a nation want to be taken seriously, then we need to get real about our property obsession and learn some real economics and commerce!

Let's put it another way - if any powerful interest scuppers vital infrastructure like the Metro Link for selfish reasons, they could be guilty (in part) of killing off Dublin economically - how much more can Dublin take before grinding to a halt? Are we looking at our own Detroit (doughnut style city) in the future? I would actually go as far as declaring a state of emergency in Dublin in order to get the vital infrastructure done!

bk

sdanseo wrote: »

The problem I see with Whitworth, while it is a great interchange, is that the single line from there to Connolly, combined with the impossibility of running North/Southwestern -> Northern line direct services, severely constrains what can be offered. If everyone coming from the North who wants to go West has to change at Connolly and reverse back out, so to speak, it adds to the demand on the bottleneck. Assuming these services also use the loopline, it restricts that too.

Sure, if someone on the Northern line wants to go West, they will need to change at Connolly. But that would also have been the partly the case under DU too.

Actually now that I think of it, how would you have gotten from Northern line to Maynooth line under DU?

Get off at Docklands, walk/Luas to Connoliy and then onto a train heading to Maynooth? Or stay onto Pearse and then swap their for Dart heading to Maynooth?

DU has some awkward changes too.

sdanseo wrote: »

Same thing for those coming from the West into Connolly or Pearse as PPT services currently do. They take away from potential capacity by hogging the bottlenecked section.

I'd guess a bunch of them will end up terminating at Docklands. Change at Whitworth Road for a train to Connolly, etc. if you want to go that way or the Metro if that suits.

sdanseo wrote: »

DU makes all the right connections and isn't comparable to any level of upgrade of DART services that exclude quad-tracking across the Liffey or enabling movement from the Northwestern/Southwestern lines to the Northern/Southern lines.

Oh of course, it isn't as good as the tunnel. It is a clever temporary fix until we do the DU tunnel.

marno21

I think the NTA realised that it was unlikely that all components of DART Expansion including the tunnel along with Metro North were going to be funded so they came up with the best alternative measure, which is extremely functional and will do until DU gets built.

Lord Glentoran

Grandeeod wrote: »

The very fact that all this info was actually stood over by a national transport agency cannot inspire any confidence that this latest version of Metro will be built. Classic Irish tactics. Pick a GAA club to bulldoze along with some pricey gaffs and into planning hell we go. Result? Either nothing or kick the can down the road planning nightmare scenario that ends up delivering little. Honestly Marno, you need to get the history book out.

They’ve picked an interesting target date. 2027. If they had left it to 2028 it would be fifty years since I picked up a leaflet from CIE’s stand at the 1978 Spring Show in the RDS entitled “Towards Rapid Transit” :eek:

strassenwo!f

I still don't really understand the southside part of this plan.

If this were to be built to the southwest of the city, for example torwards Rathgar, Rathmines, Terenure and beyond or towards Harold's Cross, Kimmage and Walkinstown, then I could probably get it.

With both of those scenarios, where it has been officially established that no LUAS line is suitable, and that it must be served by a metro, continuation of the Swords - City centre makes sense.

0 rapid rail connection to/from the city to a 60 kmh rapid rail connection makes considerable sense to me.

Upgrading from the current Luas arrangement makes none.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I still don't really understand the southside part of this plan.

If this were to be built to the southwest of the city, for example torwards Rathgar, Rathmines, Terenure and beyond or towards Harold's Cross, Kimmage and Walkinstown, then I could probably get it.

With both of those scenarios, where it has been officially established that no LUAS line is suitable, and that it must be served by a metro, continuation of the Swords - City centre makes sense.

0 rapid rail connection to/from the city to a 60 kmh rapid rail connection makes considerable sense to me.

Upgrading from the current Luas arrangement makes none.

Was there something wrong with the previous explanations you received about this?

ricimaki

Here are some roughly comparable systems to Metrolink as proposed. These have similar train lengths and widths to whats proposed. I can't find many cases of extended underground running of low floor vehicles.

System|Train length|Number of cars|Platform height|Driverless|Notes
Porto Metro|37 or 74M|1 or 2 trams coupled together|Low|No|Trams, not too different to Luas
Rotterdam Metro|30 - 130M|Varies by train type. Upto 6|High|No|High floor variant of Porto metro
Panama Metro|52.5M|3|High|No|
Vancouver Skytrain|35 - 70M|2/4/6|High|Yes|Can run to 45 second interval
Copenhagen Metro|39M|3|High|Yes|Video of the system
London DLR|60 - 90M|Two or three 2 car units|High|Yes|


If the station boxes are built to 90M, I think it's acceptable to open them at 60M, and start with 60M trains, provided high platforms/trains are used. A lot of internal space in the train is lost with low platforms. The high floor trains have much more internal space, as the seat positions can be move around a lot more

strassenwo!f

The usual thing for the folk in the Department of Transport is that they chicken out of any major decisions.

They came up with the Luas link to CityWest because it was paid for by property developers, and ditto the link to the Point depot.
.
The cross-city was created because it had to be, after several years of the Department pretending that Dublin had a LUAS network

marno21

At no stage in either the Metrolink scheme or indeed in the NTA's Greater Dublin Area Transport policy document was any mention given to diverting the Metro scheme down towards Harolds Cross or Terenure.

It's not happening as part of this scheme for reasons that have been outlined many many times. Please refrain from such discussion on thread and start a new thread for hypothetical Metros if you want

Lord Glentoran

Roma Lucata Est, Causa Finita Est. A rail line via Harold’s Cross isn’t going to happen anyway because of George Redmond’s planning decisions in Mount Argus in the late 80s, killing off the then protected route for the Harold’s Cross to Tallaght busway. Quick gain for individuals, greater good screwed..

murphaph

In my fantasy world it makes sense to divert the green line from Peter Place along the canal to be joined to the Red Line at Rialto, allowing most red line trams to bypass the slowest part of the route. Red Line is actually highly segregated from James's to the Square. Would require closure and draining of canal and building an inverted A shaped tunnel to carry trams below and canal above. But yeah... fantasy.

tom1ie

Apologies if this has been answered, but are there any examples of driverless 90m hfv with psg’s (platform safety gates) fitted anywhere else in the world? I’m sure there are.
It just doesn’t seem to make sense to have a high speed high capacity metro, while still allowing passengers to cross the tracks to get to the opposite platform.
The study that Tii has undertaken is very good but they haven’t considered the above option?

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

Apologies if this has been answered, but are there any examples of driverless 90m hfv with psg’s (platform safety gates) fitted anywhere else in the world? I’m sure there are.
It just doesn’t seem to make sense to have a high speed high capacity metro, while still allowing passengers to cross the tracks to get to the opposite platform.
The study that Tii has undertaken is very good but they haven’t considered the above option?

They considered 60m HFV option and yes it has much higher levels of segregation then the 60/90m LFV options, including PSG's and pedestrian overpasses at each station.

A 90M HFV would be a relatively easy future extension of those platforms, as long as the underground station boxes are built with 90m platforms.