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

cgcsb

Idbatterim wrote: »

A crucial question, can the link to bray and south still go ahead?

In a word nope, the Finglas extension would be ahead in the queue. Also the abandoned proposals for a new town in Poolbeg West may be revived and a new luas extension for the area will be important. Bridesglen-Bray is a sparsely populated area, much more pressing issues.

prunudo

I wouldn't be as pessimistic as to say the extension to Bray is dead in the water. I think the way they've left the tunnel finishing where it does leaves it very much a possibility in the future.

L1011

cgcsb wrote: »

Wow, someone still thinks 'the market' is what's best.

Do you propose that TII builds an apartment block itself, then?

cgcsb

L1011 wrote: »

Do you propose that TII builds an apartment block itself, then?

Nope but it should remain zones as residential rather than simple 'let the market decide'

L1011

cgcsb wrote: »

Nope but it should remain zones as residential rather than simple 'let the market decide'

It's already mixed-use (residential and leisure) though

Rulmeq

Eamonn Ryan on Today FM just now, saying it's simple to just keep the TBM in the ground, and start tunnelling out to his personal favourite parts of town, and he's going to spend the next few months fighting for it. No challenge from the host (It's not Matt, it's Carl tonight, not that Matt would have challenged him either)

Rulmeq

L1011 wrote: »

It's already mixed-use (residential and leisure) though

I'd actually go against everyone on this with probably an upopular opinion, but I'd rather if they just had an open plaza there. Metros by their nature can seem very opressive and dark, I like the idea of open space above this.

froinky

Marcusm wrote: »

The Beechwood North tie in was the Metro rising up in-line between Ranelagh and Beechwood. Looks like that is the future tie in and that is the one which would have max disruption to Green Line as all excavation within the envelope of the line. Storing up problems for the future.

I dont understand why they haven't gone under dunville avenue - its only another 100m away? Surely this is going to be another future problem?

thebsharp

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

L1011 wrote: »

There's no details of how they intend to increase Green line capacity other than a statement that there "will be need" and it will be "dealt with".

I would consider the bare bones of that to be essential if they're proposing that as a replacement for Metrolink.

Ultimately, it's up to the residents of the Green Line to fight they're corner. Building Charlemont to Swords now has to be the pragmatic priority. College Gate and Tara St is the only major public objection that remains, and their statement today sounds promising in terms of tackling it.

Something that is regularly overlooked is the demand in both directions on the existing Green Line. The trams tend to be full, or getting there, both ways during peak periods. There is something like 25,000 people already employed in Sandyford and it's growing. Also 1000s more across places like Clonskeagh, Dundrum and Cherrywood Business parks. This was demonstrated in the initial modelling report.

bk

CatInABox wrote: »

I'd agree totally with your post, with a caveat on this one. I think this would be great, so long as there's no access problems once the centre closes in the evening. Should be extremely easy, but still, I'd be wary.

Looking at the report, they specifically indicate an entrance that is directly on O'Connell St.

Interesting that Daridstown will now be the Depot location. I think that makes sense, being near the airport not much use for anything else. Leaves the rest of the Swords area for housing and future expansion.

Also interesting that they will be re-aligning the Irish Rail tracks at Glasnevin. The Kildare line gains access to the Maynooth line. That would open up some interesting new possibilities.

LuckyLloyd

thebsharp wrote: »

Something that is regularly overlooked is the demand in both directions on the existing Green Line. The trams tend to be full, or getting there, both ways during peak periods. There is something like 25,000 people already employed in Sandyford and it's growing. Also 1000s more across places like Clonskeagh, Dundrum and Cherrywood Business parks. This was demonstrated in the initial modelling report.

I agree, the upgrade is absolutely necessary. However the only voices on the affected section have been the Dunville Avenue contingent. Until those affected fight their corner it’s a lost cause. They will eventually, and it will get done at greater expense and delay.

CatInABox

Seems like more documents are up there now.

These weren't there earlier

Metrolink PR Design Development
Metrolink PR Design Development - Appendix M (Tara)
Metrolink Green Line Future Demand Capacity Intervention

crushproof

In regards to the Swords section it's frustrating that the town has been allowed to sprawl massively westwards as the metro will be serving the eastern and northern edges of the town where there is little development. Hopefully these spots will be zoned for high density living and frequent feeder buses will serve the western fringes.

Busman Paddy Lasty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I agree, the upgrade is absolutely necessary. However the only voices on the affected section have been the Dunville Avenue contingent. Until those affected fight their corner it’s a lost cause. They will eventually, and it will get done at greater expense and delay.

Zero f*cks given about the economy and CBA to appease a vocal bunch. CBA and growth should trump that nonsense.

Two pro Metrolink submissions incoming about the importance of linking these employment zones. Will hassle Noel Rock for the craic as well, being a noisy **** gets rewarded apparently

L1011

That last document confirms 24tph when all existing orders are fulfilled - which will have impacts on Dunville red time - and 30tph if they are to push out 20 years, only to Charlemont due to the on street running after

So yes, Dunville will be as good as closed during peak if there's 30tph.

CatInABox

64m high floor trains apparently.

The Preferred Route design is based on 64m long high-floor trains with stations sized
accordingly to meet train and passenger demands, instead of the 90m long trains originally
considered during EPR development.

I'm not liking this

The proposed system will allow for capacity increase if required in the future. This can be
accommodated by either a decrease in the comfort level, at peak times, or increasing train
frequency slightly. Under these circumstances, the system could typically increase its peak
hour capacity by up to 40% if required.

There's lots of talk of shorter stations than the 90 metres in the EPR as well, that's how they're avoiding CPOing an apartment block at Glasnevin. I'd like to know more about this, because if they've shrank the station boxes, then I'll be most annoyed.

Fian

You guys are all missing the subtlety of this decision. It is not short sighted pandering to NIMBYs, it is actually a machiavellian stroke of genius to tackle transportation in the city on a long term basis by encouraging more take up of cycling. /s

The above is sarcastic but it will actually have the effect of boosting cycling quite alot, I live about 100 yards from the luas station in dundrum but I cycle to and from work (near St. Stephen's green stop) rather than deal with the over-crowding on the luas and the difficulty in actually getting on it. That is only going to increase because bad as it is now it will be a nightmare to get on when Cherrywood opens up. And that leads to an escalating arms race btw, for those who are currently ok. Because you will have full trams going out of the city in the morning to a station where they can get back on to one going back in - driving people further and further out to do the same. Last time I did get a luas during rush hour i did this, and there were lots of others who got off and crossed the tracks to go back in with me.

I wasn't going to switch to the Metro even when it eventually arrived to Dundrum, I prefer to cycle and wouldn't give that up. But the congestion on that line is already close to breaking point, no way can it wait until 2038 for a metro to be put on a line already designed to carry a metro. At least they start the bore on the north end so there is time to revise the plans as congestion on teh green line increases in the coming years.

I notice by the way that today's consultation documents speaks about "temporary closures" which would have occurred if the green line were tied in to metrolink. It doesn't put any quantification on the length of those closures which seems to be a pretty glaring omission.

Zebra3

Media outlets still reporting today that the GL could've been closed for ups four years in the event of a metro upgrade.

Why wasn't that bs nailed ages ago?

CatInABox

They've seemingly removed two of the files from the website, weird.

Grandeeod

bk wrote: »

Exactly, I knew you would be disgusted by all this and I've no doubt that you would have been overjoyed if you were wrong and if it all went ahead. That is why I didn't like the look of some posters using your name like that.

I hope you are wrong about non of it happening, but I think you want this to happen as badly as the rest of us.

Actually BK, I'm happy enough if some posters agree that I have been right in relation to things. I don't take any particular joy from it, but there is no harm in being a bit grounded in relation to where we are with all this.

I hope I'm wrong and I want to see something happening. I disagree with the way this Government are approaching things and have a general distaste with how politicians have too much influence (a bad influence) on rail based transport projects. It's an absolute cluster****.

Grandeeod

Zebra3 wrote: »

Media outlets still reporting today that the GL could've been closed for ups four years in the event of a metro upgrade.

Why wasn't that bs nailed ages ago?

Because the media still rely on babysitters to point out the facts. The whole GL gauge think from its opening was another example of BS that the media clung to until it was torpedoed.

Media babysitters come in the form of a good lobby group. We don't appear to have one anymore.

bk

I really enjoyed reading the "Metrolink Green Line Future Demand Capacity Intervention Report". It felt like it was written by someone who has been reading the conversations by Strassenwolf and has tried to layout as clearly as possible for him, the current capacity of the Luas green line, the short term increase with new longer trams and the absolute maximum long term capacity (as far as Charlemont).

They even give a lovely table to show all the options

So basically, current capacity is: 6,407
Capacity in a few years with all 55m trains at 24 TPH: 8,813
Possible future capacity as far as Charlemont: 55m trains at 30 TPH: 11,016

However I'd note a few things about this last option:
- 30 trains per hour, pre direction, pretty much guarantees the closure of Dunville Avenue and Beechwood Road or effectively so, you might get a green for like 10 seconds.
- It also sounds like it would require CPO's of homes and buldozers around Charlemont to build more turn back facilities.

It certainly doesn't sound like a cheap or easy solution.

LXFlyer

Grandeeod wrote: »

Because the media still rely on babysitters to point out the facts. The whole GL gauge think from its opening was another example of BS that the media clung to until it was torpedoed.

Media babysitters come in the form of a good lobby group. We don't appear to have one anymore.

Plus none of the media asked what the underlying assumptions behind any potential closure were, whether closures would be on a rolling basis, what the potential impact of different construction methods, power supply upgrades etc. would be.

All that was done was to blindly post headline closure periods that someone leaked, with no analysis of them which has led to wildly exaggerated commentaries ever since.

We are still really none the wiser about what closure periods (and sections) would be needed to upgrade the line, and as you rightly commented before we continue to pay the price for poor planning decisions when the Green Line was designed originally.

L1011

bk wrote: »

- 30 trains per hour, pre direction.

There's likely to be less than 30tph in both directions, due to the tidal flow of demand and scheduling to accomodate that - e.g. the units heading North at morning peak will be split between Charlemont turnbacks and existing Broombridge and Parnell runners and also return after peak. Would need to do some hideous maths to work out but 55tph combined is a decent guess I'd think (at risk of getting called unscientific!)

That adds some potential seconds of green, but as its a stop/go system, really how many vehicles can get through in total?

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

That last document confirms 24tph when all existing orders are fulfilled - which will have impacts on Dunville red time - and 30tph if they are to push out 20 years, only to Charlemont due to the on street running after

So yes, Dunville will be as good as closed during peak if there's 30tph.

Agreed on the latter point. Another solution will have to be found by then, which frankly is what I think the NTA are giving themselves sufficient breathing space to deal with.

For the record, currently during the am peak, the peak frequency northbound translates to 20 tph which is maintained for 60 mins.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

There's likely to be less than 30tph in both directions, due to the tidal flow of demand and scheduling to accomodate that - e.g. the units heading North at morning peak will be split between Charlemont turnbacks and existing Broombridge and Parnell runners and also return after peak. Would need to do some hideous maths to work out but 55tph combined is a decent guess I'd think (at risk of getting called unscientific!)

That adds some potential seconds of green, but as its a stop/go system, really how many vehicles can get through in total?

Agreed - it wouldn’t be 30tph simultaneously in both directions - the peak flow is highest northbound and staggered southbound as it is.

Currently it’s 20 northbound and 14 southbound during the peak frequency period.

madbeanman

I wonder if this thread will act as a source for historians in the future. It’s (sadly) been required for far longer than you’d think necessary.

CatInABox

Here's more from the design doc:

High floor trains have more capacity than low floor trains and this combined with the proposed 90 second peak headway made possible by the planned use of (GoA4) Automatic Train Operation (ATO) technology, enables the scheme to satisfy the target peak hour demand in 2057 of 20,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) with the shorter trains and a ‘comfort level’ of AW2 – signifying a good level of comfort.

Looks like they really might be going with 64 metre stations

CatInABox

The Tara St appendix is super comprehensive. The folks there don't really have a leg to stand on after that report.

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

Here's more from the design doc:



Looks like they really might be going with 64 metre stations

I’m alright with this so long as everything is left in such a way that expanding the platforms can be done with little or no disruption. If there is enough access and egress etc for more numbers too. Ideally though they’d just leave them at 100 mts from day one.

MJohnston

CatInABox wrote: »

Here's more from the design doc:

Looks like they really might be going with 64 metre stations

That just says the trains will be shorter, not the stations. The consultation report specifically shows station *boxes* longer than 100 metres. As I said before we'll be very likely to get station *platforms* that match the train length.

L1011

The engineering doc and Tara doc links keep vanishing as far as I can see?

ricimaki

L1011 wrote: »

The engineering doc and Tara doc links keep vanishing as far as I can see?

Do they appear here:
https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports

I've looked at it a few times today, but seems to be different each time

CatInABox

MJohnston wrote: »

That just says the trains will be shorter, not the stations. The consultation report specifically shows station *boxes* longer than 100 metres. As I said before we'll be very likely to get station *platforms* that match the train length.

They're also talking about shorter station boxes though, at least in relation to Glasnevin:

The reduced platform length made possible by the move to Automatic Train Operation and high floor trains results in a shorter underground station box.

Hopefully it's just shorter by a couple of metres, and not by enough to screw with an easy expansion

L1011

ricimaki wrote: »

Do they appear here:
https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports

I've looked at it a few times today, but seems to be different each time

Right now, no

CatInABox wrote: »

They're also talking about shorter station boxes though, at least in relation to Glasnevin:



Hopefully it's just shorter by a couple of metres, and not by enough to screw with an easy expansion

Guesswork again here - ATO doesn't have the risk of minor differences in final positioning so can use tighter platforms?

Trains have to hit basically spot on each time for the platform edge doors to work - and they do. Meatsacks driving have to be given some leeway!

CatInABox

I wonder how they're going to do the Northwood stop? It's right under the Ballymun Rd. Closing that road is going to cause more than a few headaches.

L1011

CatInABox wrote: »

I wonder how they're going to do the Northwood stop? It's right under the Ballymun Rd. Closing that road is going to cause more than a few headaches.

Right now there is plenty of space to build temporary roadways to the West and to the North East, the petrol station and new developments limit the South East. Remember its also the TBM launch site so there'll be fairly huge disruption all around.

Cut and Cover all along the Swords Bypass is going to be particularly awkward as well, but at least it is somewhere practical to do it.

cgcsb

CatInABox wrote: »

64m high floor trains apparently.



I'm not liking this



There's lots of talk of shorter stations than the 90 metres in the EPR as well, that's how they're avoiding CPOing an apartment block at Glasnevin. I'd like to know more about this, because if they've shrank the station boxes, then I'll be most annoyed.

Even if most stations were made 100m with a view to future upgrade and Glasnevin was tackled by a future government, that's something

L1011

Glasnevin appears to have a 100-110m box, going on using a bit of cardboard against the scale on the maps


Are they going to tell the Irish Rail DART Expansion design team about the relatively significant track realignment they're proposing? :pac:

All the way from Glasnevin Junction to before the underbridge for the PPT line is being pushed south to give space for the required connections at Glasnevin Junction. It would make sense to do this while doing the DART Expansion which is under design now and liable to be started well before.

cgcsb

CatInABox wrote: »

I wonder how they're going to do the Northwood stop? It's right under the Ballymun Rd. Closing that road is going to cause more than a few headaches.

Aside from Ikea there's no much out there. The nct centre maybe

Stephen Strange

cgcsb wrote: »

Aside from Ikea there's no much out there. The nct centre maybe

That's the other side of the M50, no? Ballymun road is a fairly major route from the city to the M50.

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

Aside from Ikea there's no much out there. The nct centre maybe

True enough, but it's still cutting off access to the M50 for Ballymun. I'd assume that they'll reroute traffic down the road towards Ikea, down an upgraded Carton Way, then back around an upgraded R104.

JohnC.

L1011 wrote: »

Trains have to hit basically spot on each time for the platform edge doors to work - and they do. Meatsacks driving have to be given some leeway!

Meatsacks can manage it elsewhere, even with platform edge doors.

WoollyRedHat

Am I right in saying Dunville Ave residents in scuppering the green line being upgraded to Metro have signed their own death warrant in that the higher frequency Luas's will effectively cut them off, as part of this new plan, a Berlin Wall of trams if you will.

Will the final consultation give people who are on southside/Green Line who have been put on the back-burner for an upgrade by 2028 a chance to voice their opposition and get the conversion back on track, is there still a chance for that?

Charles Babbage

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Am I right in saying Dunville Ave residents in scuppering the green line being upgraded to Metro have signed their own death warrant in that the higher frequency Luas's will effectively cut them off, a Berlin Wall of trams if you will

Will the final consultation give people who are on southside/Green Line who have been put on the back-burner for an upgrade by 2028 a chance to voice their opposition and get the conversion back on track, is there still a chance for that?

If they get the Metro extended somewhere else on the southside, places like Belfield have been mentioned, then some of the Green line LUAS traffic might make its way on to the metro before Ranelagh.

dublinman1990

After hearing this about the EPR on ML today on RTÉ News this evening. Here are my first impressions of today's announcement from the NTA.

I'm actually gutted to hear that ML won't be extended to Sandyford for another 20 years. It's an absolute disgrace that Sandyford is not included from the EPR while it's getting shovels into the ground because if the NTA that if they wanted to extend ML to Cherrywood within that time frame. Could they do other changes to it again when it's done less than 20 years time? Will it cost us more money in the long run to extend ML from Charlemont to Cherrywood? If yes; how much more money will it be to do it by then?

I would have thought that building ML from Swords to Sandyford going from the proposed plans when it was first proposed by the NTA should have been the preferred plan from their first port of call. The calls from all of the politicians in the lead up to this announcement have been incredibly stupid. These people are not really fit for public office if they cannot be seen to do their jobs properly for their positions in government. Pandering to the NIMBY crowd is not helpful by reducing this project down to run from Charlemont. If any other national government within the EU would have heard about our record regarding our own infrastructure; they would have said thought the 1st time round that it would have been treated as a joke. But no; they would have been told that this is Ireland. We do things differently around here & not in a good way.

I have another thing to say about Eamon Ryan being leader of The Green Party about his supposed handling of this project by agreeing with the NIMBY's. His time as leader of The Green Party has come into question when he has handed a small number of his constituents a big win. By being a TD in our national parliament; he has effectively taken on board a minority viewpoint, namely a number of constituents who have expressed their negative opinions on the project, which has effectively hindered the rate of progress & environmental viability of the project by an extra decade. When we talk about tackling the effect of greenhouse gas emissions; Ireland's PT system, going from significant environmental reports by the EU & other various environmental bodies throughout the world, is among one of the highest producers of them by a significant margin in Ireland. It is just about matched by our agricultural sector here. If Eamon Ryan's role is leading a party that promotes taking care of Ireland's environment including people to take plenty of PT within the country wherever possible. He should be promoting ML to his own constituents as a Dublin TD by showing it has a huge positive effect in reducing greenhouse gas emissions on our PT networks here. His handling of the project by extending ML to places like Rathfarnham could have been left for another time if the NTA had insisted to continue with the current project that was announced today even though it will cause disappointment by the electorate.

Our own government has been trying to implement some other measures to help reduce the environmental impact on our transport sector like installing more charging points for electric cars & having alternative fuel buses included for BusConnects for cities like Dublin, Cork & Galway. But when we have senior members of our government, including our own Taoiseach, making the calls for ML to be lessened so the impact will be reduced for their constituents shows them for what they are when they act like members of government. Their role in the NIMBY's having a significant say in reducing the attractiveness of this project by potentially a huge margin is not surprising to the point they should have not interfered with the entire project end of story. They should have held the nerve to ignore their constituents & leave the public consulations alone by agreeing the project as it was the first time round of the watered down version that we got today from the NTA. Building a project like this is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. TII should have had given themselves full remit to try & get this project built by clearing any "apparent" objections from constituents all over the country.

The impact of significant fines that we get from the EU for not complying with EU target on greenhouse gases will not stop at all. They will continue to get eaten up from our public finances in future. Their whole role in reducing the need for ML to go to Sandyford will become another recurring nightmare. They had a role in making the Dart Underground significantly reduced when the NTA had decided to redraw the project numerous times over the years. This ML announcement is also the second time that Paschal Donohue has interfered with a major infrastructure project in this country. Remember the time that he announced the scrapping of the Dart Underground project tunnel from Inchicore to nearby Howth Junction & Donaghmede & reducing the project to stop at with a turnback facility at Pearse Station in Dublin. Do you not remember the level of negative backlash he got from the electorate when he made that announcement. It's plain as day to see that from a country like Ireland, the level of intelligence that you need to get into government will give you a lot of luck into getting a huge significant position in our own government. And by the sounds of it; it appears our own government's level when dealing with infrastructure is in need of severe attention when we had more government ministers including one Green Party leader getting involved in antics in the lead-up to today's news on ML. I heard today that Paschal Donohue's own constituency got the change for the new station today at Na Fianna to be relocated from there to the Home Farm soccer ground. What type of effect will have on his own constituents.

madbeanman

L1011 wrote: »

Trains have to hit basically spot on each time for the platform edge doors to work - and they do. Meatsacks driving have to be given some leeway!

It’s so sad to dehumanise someone trying to make a living by referring to them as a meatsack.

Such a poor reflection on yourself, I think.

salmocab

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If they get the Metro extended somewhere else on the southside, places like Belfield have been mentioned, then some of the Green line LUAS traffic might make its way on to the metro before Ranelagh.

Belfield was mentioned by Eamon Ryan. There won’t be other metros anywhere close to the greenline that’s just talk from the greens in a bid to cling to his seat and pretend they are anything other than what they are. The greenline upgrade is the only show in town for that route into the city.

L1011

madbeanman wrote: »

It’s so sad to dehumanise someone trying to make a living by referring to them as a meatsack.

Such a poor reflection on yourself, I think.

It's a standard term used in automation of anything, particularly aviation, where they're highly paid and still legally required to be there.

WoollyRedHat

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If they get the Metro extended somewhere else on the southside, places like Belfield have been mentioned, then some of the Green line LUAS traffic might make its way on to the metro before Ranelagh.

It would be great for something like that to happen considering there is 40k plus people studying and working there but that will not happen in next 10 years as you would have to build completely new infrastructure and it would entail mining from Charlemount to Clonskeagh entry point to connect at a huge cost. I would only hope that when it finally does happen that the student body and staff unions will see the bigger picture and put up with the disruption. There is no doubt that Clonskeagh entrance would be closed for some time to accommodate this