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

mickmmc

I went to the consultation tonight. I also asked about the 4 footbridges over the R132. The footbridges will have to be knocked but they have no solution yet for a replacement. The Metro is proposed to run down the central median of the R132 but will be elevated.

One Councillor mentioned the fact that part of route includes running through Balheary playing pitches, which are owned by Fingal Co. Council and the local clubs could kick up a fuss over it.

From talking to a few people at the consultation they would prefer the metro be underground and not elevated on the R132. The engineer I talked ruled out underground based on cost.

Grandeeod

The spoofing has begun yet again.:rolleyes:

Grandeeod

Zebra3 wrote: »

I don’t see using playing fields to build such an important piece of infrastructure controversial.

Demolishing people’s homes maybe, but temporary loss of sports pitches, not at all.

Football pitches in Fairview Park were out of use for some time during the construction of the DPT.

It wasn’t the end of the world.

Have you seen the media reaction to it? I'm sure you have. We even have Dermot Bannon going nuts, a z lister. You couldn't make up half of the ****storm coming Metros way.

kravmaga

Okay i attended an information session today at Fingal County Council offices in Swords today at 2pm, they could not answer a lot of questions I asked.

Lots of fancy colour brochures with route maps and individual maps for each stop.

But when asked will the parking be free parking at Estuary terminus North of Swords park n ride . Said she didnt know and that was a good question to ask.

Also I asked will priority be given to Northside in construction phases considering the airport is located there, new runway and control tower being built now.

Like why does it even need to go to the Southside to Sandyford as they already have the LUAS system to Sandyford to Cherrywood. Seems a waste of money to built it to Sandyford. City centre is enough

sdanseo

kravmaga wrote: »

Okay i attended an information session today at Fingal County Council offices in Swords today at 2pm, they could not answer a lot of questions I asked.

Lots of fancy colour brochures with route maps and individual maps for each stop.

But when asked will the parking be free at Estuary terminus North of Swords.

Also I asked will priority be given to Northside considering the airport is located there.

Like why does it even need to go to the Southside to Sandyford as they already have the LUAS system to Sandyford to Cherrywood.

Because the section from the City Centre to Sandyford is crippled due to lack of capaicity. It's bursting at the seams. As a tram it serves maybe 7,000 people per direction per hour (ppdph). As a metro it could be capable of triple that figure.

When you say priority to the Northside, you mean only building the Northern half? Maybe, but doing it this way is almost a no brainer given the current issues with the Green line, potential for savings by doing it all at once, and for connectivity from Northside to Southside which will benefit those of us in Fingal. By connecting to Sandyford it's a direct link to one of the largest industrial estates in the country for a start, taking probably hundreds if not thousands of journeys off the M50.

murphaph

Grandeeod wrote: »

Have you seen the media reaction to it? I'm sure you have. We even have Dermot Bannon going nuts, a z lister. You couldn't make up half of the ****storm coming Metros way.

I'm just waiting for your man from Carroll's to announce his latest plastic hammer shop along the route.

LeinsterDub

Grandeeod wrote: »

Have you seen the media reaction to it? I'm sure you have. We even have Dermot Bannon going nuts, a z lister. You couldn't make up half of the ****storm coming Metros way.

We'll stick in a mezzanine level and a big glass wall in all the stations. That will keep him happy.

embraer170

Low flow trains would be a bit of a disappointment, and a wasted opportunity.

Grandeeod

murphaph wrote: »

I'm just waiting for your man from Carroll's to announce his latest plastic hammer shop along the route.

With "No Metro here" Balloons.:D This is heading for so much planning hell, its actually worse than the original MN proposal in its earliest guise. However, it will languish in public consultation before then. The wheel has been reinvented as predicted. Such a shame that this is down to nothing more than politics.

Grandeeod

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We'll stick in a mezzanine level and a big glass wall in all the stations. That will keep him happy.

Once its open space. Dermot would marry open space.

That said, he'll carry more weight into objections that any of us here.

Stephen15

embraer170 wrote: »

Low flow trains would be a bit of a disappointment, and a wasted opportunity.

Exactly I said it multiple times bit why wasn't Luas just build with Manchester Metrolink height platforms then the upgrade to HFV metro would be far easier.

Brian CivilEng

Stephen15 wrote: »

Exactly I said it multiple times bit why wasn't Luas just build with Manchester Metrolink height platforms then the upgrade to HFV metro would be far easier.

With the Manchester metrolink the high platforms were a legacy of the transfer of mainline train lines to tram lines without reconstructing the platforms. I used live in Stretford and it was clear to see that you were in an railway station when you caught the tram. If I recall correctly Altrincham had trams on one platform and trains on the other. Worked in the suburbs but one you got to town the high platforms were downright weird, Picadilly Gardens especially I always thought the tram platforms were dangerous.

Low platforms make more sense for a tramline, and as the Luas was new build (little was reused in the way of stations from the Harcourt line), it made sense for low floor to be used at the time. They made it easy for upgrading to Metro in ways that didn't reduce the passenger experience in the meantime (increased loading gauge etc). Although they should never have removed the bridge on Dunville Ave.

Incidentally in Melbourne I remember the line to the Formula 1 track was a tram that ran along old train lines, it was low floor but the old stations had high platforms still in existence, the tram stopped afterwards at a new low floor platform.

Grandeeod

abitofacomedian wrote: »

With the Manchester metrolink the high platforms were a legacy of the transfer of mainline train lines to tram lines without reconstructing the platforms. I used live in Stretford and it was clear to see that you were in an railway station when you caught the tram. If I recall correctly Altrincham had trams on one platform and trains on the other. Worked in the suburbs but one you got to town the high platforms were downright weird, Picadilly Gardens especially I always thought the tram platforms were dangerous.

Low platforms make more sense for a tramline, and as the Luas was new build (little was reused in the way of stations from the Harcourt line), it made sense for low floor to be used at the time. They made it easy for upgrading to Metro in ways that didn't reduce the passenger experience in the meantime (increased loading gauge etc). Although they should never have removed the bridge on Dunville Ave.

Incidentally in Melbourne I remember the line to the Formula 1 track was a tram that ran along old train lines, it was low floor but the old stations had high platforms still in existence, the tram stopped afterwards at a new low floor platform.

At least you know what you're talking about.

Brian CivilEng

Grandeeod wrote: »

At least you know what you're talking about.

I wouldn't go that far.

Stephen15

abitofacomedian wrote: »

With the Manchester metrolink the high platforms were a legacy of the transfer of mainline train lines to tram lines without reconstructing the platforms. I used live in Stretford and it was clear to see that you were in an railway station when you caught the tram. If I recall correctly Altrincham had trams on one platform and trains on the other. Worked in the suburbs but one you got to town the high platforms were downright weird, Picadilly Gardens especially I always thought the tram platforms were dangerous.

Low platforms make more sense for a tramline, and as the Luas was new build (little was reused in the way of stations from the Harcourt line), it made sense for low floor to be used at the time. They made it easy for upgrading to Metro in ways that didn't reduce the passenger experience in the meantime (increased loading gauge etc). Although they should never have removed the bridge on Dunville Ave.

Incidentally in Melbourne I remember the line to the Formula 1 track was a tram that ran along old train lines, it was low floor but the old stations had high platforms still in existence, the tram stopped afterwards at a new low floor platform.

But the long term ambition when the Green Line was built was to upgrade it to Metro. Since that's the case it would have made more sense to make the platforms high floor. The Luas may be a tram way but if there was a bit more forward they could have made the upgrade from tramway to Metro easier.

I don't know everything but about the Manchester Metrolink trams but would they not have the same loading gauge as the Luas.

Grandeeod

abitofacomedian wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far.

Well you hit the spot a few times so.

Grandeeod

Stephen15 wrote: »

But the long term ambition when the Green Line was built was to upgrade it to Metro. Since that's the case it would have made more sense to make the platforms high floor. The Luas may be a tram way but if there was a bit more forward they could have made the upgrade from tramway to Metro easier.

I don't know everything but about the Manchester Metrolink trams but would they not have the same loading gauge as the Luas.

You still fail to get it. The long term ambition that you speak of to upgrade the Green line to metro was a spoof job that had no serious planning or consideration given to it. It was a fudge. You will soon find this out if metrolink gets as far as figuring out the tie in near Ranelagh.

ricimaki

I don't see the change from low to high floor platforms as that big of a deal. If the platforms have to be upgraded to 90m anyway, the new 35m section could be built high, allowing a temporary transition period where only some of the carriages' doors are accesible. If it was done 43M high, 43M low, and 4M of ramp (for example. Depends on the height difference), you'd get all except for 2 carriages of the new 9 carriage trams, and most of a 60M metro train onto the platform. When the switch to fully high is made, the rest is built/upgraded, without impacting on the running of trains too much.

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

You still fail to get it. The long term ambition that you speak of to upgrade the Green line to metro was a spoof job that had no serious planning or consideration given to it. It was a fudge. You will soon find this out if metrolink gets as far as figuring out the tie in near Ranelagh.

I think we all get it, you don't think it'll happen!

Brian CivilEng

Stephen15 wrote: »

But the long term ambition when the Green Line was built was to upgrade it to Metro. Since that's the case it would have made more sense to make the platforms high floor. The Luas may be a tram way but if there was a bit more forward they could have made the upgrade from tramway to Metro easier.

I don't know everything but about the Manchester Metrolink trams but would they not have the same loading gauge as the Luas.

I believe (my opinion, I respect those that believe otherwise) that low floor gives a better customer experience for a tram service that runs on city streets as the platform does not significantly reduce the footpath area. Especially somewhere like George's Dock Luas where the platform is the footpath. Hence why it made sense for the Luas opened in 2004 to have low floor. For interoperability reasons the red and green lines were right to have been built to the same spec, there was uproar at the time when the differing loading guages made some people misunderstand that green line trams couldn't run on the red line. So to future proof the green line with high platforms, the entire street running portion of the luas would have to be made lower spec. I don't think that would have been accepted. Again my opinion.

Not sure if the Metrolink in Manchester has the same loading guage for the entire system, but the ex British Rail sections (like the Alty line) would be similar to the ex Harcourt line sections of the Luas.

Fun fact, the Harcourt line was originally built to the 1435mm track guage before Irish track guage was set at 1600mm and it had to be reguaged. So when the Luas was built to 1435mm it was restoring the original track guage.

Stephen15

Grandeeod wrote: »

You still fail to get it. The long term ambition that you speak of to upgrade the Green line to metro was a spoof job that had no serious planning or consideration given to it. It was a fudge. You will soon find this out if metrolink gets as far as figuring out the tie in near Ranelagh.

Well I'd agree with that.

Carawaystick

Where do Scoil Mobhí and Scoil Catríona play their games currently? How will access to these schools be impacted by a heavy construction siute for 6 (and the rest) years?
How much land is needed for a station? Why not use the Bons Secours car park?
Buy one house on the west of Mobhí road for access to the station.

Put the tbm's in the Ballymun road side of Albert College park

Narrow Ballymun road from it's existing 6 lane state, there's no need, theres a bottleneck and a metro to provide a solution now.

If the Bons Secours complain, remember they buried almost 800 children in a sewer.

murphaph

It must be possible to erect temporary platforms out of scaffolding and gradually replace with permanent structures once metro is open.

salmocab

murphaph wrote: »

It must be possible to erect temporary platforms out of scaffolding and gradually replace with permanent structures once metro is open.

Possibly the current platforms aren’t just too low but they may need to be cut back a bit if the new metro is wider

CarlosHarpic

This discussion is really amazingly, depressingly Irish and and also very insightful.

Half the posters are excited about what the metro will be like when built.

Half the posters are only paying attention so as to watch how Official Ireland will slowly destroy the current metro project.

I'm with the latter. So will the former when 2027 comes around and the new MetroFast branding is released.

Brian CivilEng

Until it's new years eve 2027 and I'm standing on a platform in the airport waiting for a metro that will never come I refuse to believe it won't be built. Tonnes of obstacles in the way, but I'm a civil engineer I know that every project has its difficulties. Heck I've worked on a job replacing the kerbs on a bus stop that had people complaining. Because we are not half bad as a nation in building infrastructure despite the naysayers.

My advise to anyone who who comes on here to use a phrase like "lack of joined up thinking" is to go to metrolink.ie and read the comprehensive documentation, go to a public consultation and make representation and then preach the benefits along with the weaknesses.

plodder

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Until it's new years eve 2027 and I'm standing on a platform in the airport waiting for a metro that will never come I refuse to believe it won't be built. Tonnes of obstacles in the way, but I'm a civil engineer I know that every project has its difficulties. Heck I've worked on a job replacing the kerbs on a bus stop that had people complaining. Because we are not half bad as a nation in building infrastructure despite the naysayers.

My advise to anyone who who comes on here to use a phrase like "lack of joined up thinking" is to go to metrolink.ie and read the comprehensive documentation, go to a public consultation and make representation and then preach the benefits along with the weaknesses.

The other thing is, it's going to be non stop negativity from the media until the day it opens. The inevitable problems will be the only thing they have to report on as nobody is going to buy a newspaper that says the TBMs completed another 100 metres yesterday. That's how it was with the port tunnel. The day it opened all the critics (including the people talking about earthquake fault lines) just disappeared over night.

yabadabado

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where do Scoil Mobhnd Scoil Catra play their games currently? How will access to these schools be impacted by a heavy construction siute for 6 (and the rest) years?
How much land is needed for a station? Why not use the Bons Secours car park?
Buy one house on the west of Mobhoad for access to the station.

Put the tbm's in the Ballymun road side of Albert College park

Narrow Ballymun road from it's existing 6 lane state, there's no need, theres a bottleneck and a metro to provide a solution now.

If the Bons Secours complain, remember they buried almost 800 children in a sewer.

The public consultations that are currently taking place would be the best place to ask those questions. Head along to the next one, stand up and ask you questions directly to TII/NTA.

cgcsb

kravmaga wrote: »

Okay i attended an information session today at Fingal County Council offices in Swords today at 2pm, they could not answer a lot of questions I asked.

Lots of fancy colour brochures with route maps and individual maps for each stop.

But when asked will the parking be free parking at Estuary terminus North of Swords park n ride . Said she didnt know and that was a good question to ask.

Also I asked will priority be given to Northside in construction phases considering the airport is located there, new runway and control tower being built now.

Like why does it even need to go to the Southside to Sandyford as they already have the LUAS system to Sandyford to Cherrywood. Seems a waste of money to built it to Sandyford. City centre is enough

The cost of a ticket at the park n ride that won't be open for 10 years is not something they could know with any degree of certainty.

The Sandyford extension is being done to enhance capacity and it was originally designed with metro upgrade in sight.

cgcsb

Grandeeod wrote: »

Once its open space. Dermot would marry open space.

That said, he'll carry more weight into objections that any of us here.

Dermot is giving a talk with bank of Ireland in the Radisson Blu hotel about securing mortgages (you'd think a topic on which he'd know nothing). Anyway, he's trying to diversify his income streams, RTÉ could decide he's gone stale at any minute and dump him. He's not really all that employable as an architect given his well documented laziness. Expect to see him a lot branching out into anything he can make a few quid from. /rant.