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

strassenwo!f

Alvin Holler wrote: »

There is pretty much two options for intersecting with the existing two rail lines, at Drumcondra or at Glasnevin.

Glasnevin was chosen because the two railway lines are right beside each other and at the same height whereas Drumcondra has a considerable height difference and distance between the lines.

The metro would be underground at both locations, so it would be under both lines. Presumably, if the station were to be built at Glasnevin, there would be escalators of a similar length, to/from the platforms of the overground lines, possibly from around the middle of the metro platforms, and longer escalators (perhaps at either end) to/from the street/mezzanine level.

If it were built through Drumcondra, there would presumably be escalators of different lengths, one longer one at one end to/from the Maynooth line, one or more shorter ones to/from street/mezzanine level, and one even shorter one at the other end to/from the Phoenix Park tunnel line.

Alvin Holler wrote: »

Plus, while buildings do need to be cpo'd at Glasnevin, there is plenty of room there and it's relatively straightforward to build a station there. Drumcondra would be trickier.

Trickier, yes, undoubtedly.

But the Glasnevin route would, it seems, be longer than the original route and might involve more costly tunnelling. We really don't know. In addition, much of the important work has already been done on the original Swords - Royal Canal route. The overall costs are relevant as, I strongly believe, are the catchment area issues involved.

If one metro line is built in Dublin, there will be a clamour for more - there always is, in every city - and the Broadstone - Royal Canal alignment is one which seems tailor-made to be part of a metro to/from the city centre in the future. It would be a pity if its closeness to an earlier metro line at Phibsborough were to hamper or delay its eventual upgrade.

Though probably nobody would care to admit it, it was possibly important for the design team to come up with something which definitively wasn't metro north, and the Glasnevin plan may be that.

I'd very much like to see some fairly detailed comparison of costs, in the area between Swords and the Royal Canal, between the original project and the new one.

MJohnston

If you put the interchange at Drumcondra, you can only serve one of the rail lines, if you put it near Hart's Corner, you can serve two. Simple choice.

strassenwo!f

And, to borrow a phrase from the poster MJohnston, from this thread, it wouldn't be a 'dubious, completely hypothetical route' to have a route via Drumcondra.

A metro route via Drumcondra was given permission, by ABP, some years ago.

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

If you put the interchange at Drumcondra, you can only serve one of the rail lines, if you put it near Hart's Corner, you can serve two. Simple choice.

No, it's not a simple choice.

An underground station at Drumcondra would require more work, to be sure.

But, to paraphrase the poster Murphaph, who has provided many fine and insightful comments to this board over the years, building an underground metro station in Drumcondra with a connection to the overground Maynooth line and a connection to the overground Phoenix Park tunnel line is not going to make it onto the Discovery Channel.

It's probably not easy, but it is certainly very doable.

MJohnston

It's not doable at all to add a Drumcondra station on the PPT line. In fact, it's nearly impossible. There's no room for it.

The Metro was planned to interchange there before the PPT line became active again. Now it makes no sense to have it there, and plenty of sense to have it at Whitworth.

You keep mentioning route "overlap" as if it's a bad thing, yet you haven't explained why, flying in the face of all the evidence from the world over that suggests that multiple interchanges are hugely beneficial to a transport network.

You keep bringing up this dubious and completely hypothetical Drumcondra interchange even though the plan that is going forward, the one that actually exists, goes via Whitworth.

marno21

MJohnston wrote: »

It's not doable at all to add a Drumcondra station on the PPT line. In fact, it's nearly impossible. There's no room for it.

The Metro was planned to interchange there before the PPT line became active again. Now it makes no sense to have it there, and plenty of sense to have it at Whitworth.

You keep mentioning route "overlap" as if it's a bad thing, yet you haven't explained why, flying in the face of all the evidence from the world over that suggests that multiple interchanges are hugely beneficial to a transport network.

You keep bringing up this dubious and completely hypothetical Drumcondra interchange even though the plan that is going forward, the one that actually exists, goes via Whitworth.

Exactly. When Metro North was planned we were to have a big DART Interchange at SSG with the Kildare line and an Interchange with the Maynooth line at Drumcondra.

Thankfully that wasn't progressed in recent years as we'd have had a massive white elephant station at SSG and no connectivity with the Kildare line. When Metro North was planned the PPT line had no scheduled passenger services hence the old plan

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

It's not doable at all to add a Drumcondra station on the PPT line. In fact, it's nearly impossible. There's no room for it.

There is no current obvious space, but it would be foolish to think that space cannot be made. Any competent transport designer would find loads of space there. The issue is cost.

MJohnston wrote: »

The Metro was planned to interchange there before the PPT line became active again. Now it makes no sense to have it there, and plenty of sense to have it at Whitworth.

Unfortunately, this very graphically illustrates the very short term thinking of the Department of Transport. They were originally determined not to use the Phoenix Park Tunnel, yet poured a lot of money into offshoots like the DTO, the DTA, the NTA, the RPA and IE, and probably others, to come up with something other than the Phoenix Park Tunnel. They came up with the DART Underground (now binned) and the original metro (also binned).

Give the DOT a remit to find a way at Drumcondra, and they'll find a way.

MJohnston wrote: »

You keep mentioning route "overlap" as if it's a bad thing, yet you haven't explained why, flying in the face of all the evidence from the world over that suggests that multiple interchanges are hugely beneficial to a transport network.

Interchanges are very important, and I generally look at Munich as my guide as to how to build a proper transport system for a city of Dublin's size. Quite simply, You build a number of lines outward, to make sure that everyone has pretty much a direct connection with the city centre (the most popular destination), and when that has been done you start connecting the lines up, so that direct connections between suburbs on the same side of the city are possible by train. Eventually you develop orbital routes

MJohnston wrote: »

You keep bringing up this dubious and completely hypothetical Drumcondra interchange even though the plan that is going forward, the one that actually exists, goes via Whitworth.

There you go again, with your 'dubious' and 'hypothetical' stuff.

There's nothing dubious or hypothetical about a metro line through Drumcondra. It was given planning permission by ABP and, as far as I know. still has it.

Show us why, specifically, the route via Glasnevin is better. Give us costs.

(And please stop using the phrase 'Going forward'. Ireland seems to be the home of this phrase, with the FF leader Micheal Martin the very worst offender. 'In the future' is something I can get.)

Dats me

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Show us why, specifically, the route via Glasnevin is better.

Distance between lines at Drumcondra:

Drumcondra.PNG

Distance between lines at Glasnevin:

Glasnevin.PNG

Drumcondra could clearly only interchange with one line, leaving PPT Darts from Hazelhatch without an interchange with the Metro and probably City Centre if they're terminating at the Docklands.

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

Exactly. When Metro North was planned we were to have a big DART Interchange at SSG with the Kildare line and an Interchange with the Maynooth line at Drumcondra.

Thankfully that wasn't progressed in recent years as we'd have had a massive white elephant station at SSG and no connectivity with the Kildare line. When Metro North was planned the PPT line had no scheduled passenger services hence the old plan

You aren't making sense. Please try to explain your point again. The original MN and DU plan under T21 was fine and justified SSG.

marno21

Grandeeod wrote: »

You aren't making sense. Please try to explain your point again. The original MN and DU plan under T21 was fine and justified SSG.

That's what I mean. Transport21 is history now, and the present plan has no firm plan for DART Underground other than protection of the route corridor.

In light of this, it would be imprudent of us to proceed with old Metro North which is built with heavy integration of DART Underground. If old Metro North went ahead, like some around here want, we'd have a massive interchange station at SSG which serves no purpose and no interaction with the Kildare line whatsoever.

As DART Underground may not proceed for some time, it's a wise decision to have interaction with the Kildare line via the PPT line, which is why the Glasnevin route makes a whole load of sense.

We don't even know what route redesigned DART Underground will take so that's one to think about in the future.

strassenwo!f

Dats me wrote: »

Distance between lines at Drumcondra:

Drumcondra.PNG

Distance between lines at Glasnevin:

Glasnevin.PNG

Drumcondra could clearly only interchange with one line, leaving PPT Darts from Hazelhatch without an interchange with the Metro and probably City Centre if they're terminating at the Docklands.

Thank you for the work done on the graphics, but they do not show that a metro station at Drumcondra 'could clearly only interchange with one line'.

A metro station built under Drumcondra Road, or perhaps better under the next road up towards Whitworth (St. Patrick's Road), could connect at one end with the Maynooth line and at the other with the Phoenix Park Tunnel line. It would hardly be a major challenge to create such an arrangement.

One advantage of building via Drumcondra would be that it would be a shorter metro route, so there should be or might well be savings on tunnelling costs. We'll have to see the figures.

A second advantage would be that, as it would be placed almost perfectly in the middle between the DART line through Connolly and the LUAS Green Line, it would not encroach on the catchment area of the LUAS Green Line. The northside of the city would then have three north-south rail corridors into/out of the city, all nicely spaced for each to have very efficient uptake of passengers from their catchment.

piuswal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need some Chinese discipline and efficiency in this country in relation to infrastructure.

I would seriously recommend, in order to catch up quickly, that for a period of 10 years we have a scorched earth policy. Toss people out and get the infrastructure built, no objections. If they don't take the offers, tough.

After 10 years we can put back in a reformed planning regime.

Delaying this project (largest in the history of the state) for a fcuking GAA field? I'm all for the GAA but a bit of perspective and cop on please.

Sorry, check a bit more carefully. There are 2 schools and and a creche type facility involved also as well as a soccer club and another education facility close by. Go and have a look at google maps and see how close all are to the proposed site.

piuswal

Dats me wrote: »

Distance between lines at Drumcondra:

Drumcondra.PNG

Distance between lines at Glasnevin:

Glasnevin.PNG

Drumcondra could clearly only interchange with one line, leaving PPT Darts from Hazelhatch without an interchange with the Metro and probably City Centre if they're terminating at the Docklands.

There is no question but that the Glasnevin site is the better one for the links. Just have a look on the metro map or google maps.

Dats me

Strassenwolf, if you care about interchange, which in the light of deprioritisation of DART Underground you really should, then Whitworth is clearly the superior option.

The fact that building a station between the two lines at Drumcondra and having a five minute walk at either end to the two rail lines is possible doesn't mean they're equally good options.

If you think a slightly shorter route would reduce cost, surely having a huge mined station at Drumcondra with tunneled links to both rail lines would massively increase cost? If you don't have these links to the lines, then it's not really a proper interchange.

Not to mention the disruption that would be caused by trying to create Drumcondra as an interchange. The disruption has been the main problem with the Whitworth alignment, surely this massive mined station trying to link two rail lines a kilometre apart would cause absolute uproar.

Whitworth is an incredible idea as regards interchange and it's vital to the whole alignment.

LongboardPro

piuswal wrote: »

Sorry, check a bit more carefully. There are 2 schools and and a creche type facility involved also as well as a soccer club and another education facility close by. Go and have a look at google maps and see how close all are to the proposed site.

How are they relevant though? That's a "someone please think of the children" attitude.

CatInABox

A station at Drumcondra will also mean that the tunnel will head under a lot more structures in order to get to DCU (and indeed, points further north), meaning a larger increase in tunnelling costs.

monument

LongboardPro wrote: »

How are they relevant though? That's a "someone please think of the children" attitude.

Maybe you’re one of the people who want to opt out of EU environmental law (which includes possible impacts on human health and safety and the requirement to look at alternative options) or maybe you want to opt out of the EU altogether? I don’t know.

But anybody who wants to see the project progress smoothly would get over the current draft plan and accept that it’s needless to have a TBM site on St Mobhi Rd when there’s other options available.

I for one have to admire the people who are saying to go the Chinese way of planning — others here don’t want to hear it when people suggest a TBM site on the route, just 1km up on a site previously with planning for the Metro North TBM site.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thank you for the work done on the graphics, but they do not show that a metro station at Drumcondra 'could clearly only interchange with one line'.

A metro station built under Drumcondra Road, or perhaps better under the next road up towards Whitworth (St. Patrick's Road), could connect at one end with the Maynooth line and at the other with the Phoenix Park Tunnel line. It would hardly be a major challenge to create such an arrangement.

One advantage of building via Drumcondra would be that it would be a shorter metro route, so there should be or might well be savings on tunnelling costs. We'll have to see the figures.

A second advantage would be that, as it would be placed almost perfectly in the middle between the DART line through Connolly and the LUAS Green Line, it would not encroach on the catchment area of the LUAS Green Line. The northside of the city would then have three north-south rail corridors into/out of the city, all nicely spaced for each to have very efficient uptake of passengers from their catchment.

You’re wrong about the length— it’s not notably different.

There’s no clear benefits and a lot of downsides to Drumcondra vs Glasnevin.

CatInABox

monument wrote: »

Maybe you’re one of the people who want to opt out of EU environmental law (which includes possible impacts on human health and safety and the requirement to look at alternative options) or maybe you want to opt out of the EU altogether? I don’t know.

But anybody who wants to see the project progress smoothly would get over the current draft plan and accept that it’s needless to have a TBM site on St Mobhi Rd when there’s other options available.

I for one have to admire the people who are saying to go the Chinese way of planning — others here don’t want to hear it when people suggest a TBM site on the route, just 1km up on a site previously with planning for the Metro North TBM site.

Yup, I took a step back and looked at the TBM site again. I still think that it's possible to do it at the Na Fianna pitches safely, but only with a fair amount of restrictions to the roads on the surrounding areas. The thing that changed my mind is that the number of objections (with a legitimate concern) to putting the TBM at the Albert Park College site will almost certainly be a lot lower, including health and safety objections.

I still think that a station should go at the Na Fianna pitches, but that won't have the traffic impact that a TBM site would have.

Anything to get this built on schedule, not too much over budget, and without much fuss is the way to go, I think.

If this came in roughly on schedule/budget, I can see another Metro entering planning within three years or so.

Sam Russell

CatInABox wrote: »

If this came in roughly on schedule/budget, I can see another Metro entering planning within three years or so.

I think that if this goes well, the Dart Underground will be next, followed by a Tallaght - Rathfarnum - Harolds Cross - Cristchurch - Whitehall - Beaumont - Donaghmede - Clongriffin type Metro. This route would provide the missing link to many existing suburbs with appropriate connections as it crosses other Luas/Metro/Mainline/Dart lines.

With Dart expansion, it would provide a comprehensive rail based network for Dublin for the 22nd century.

Sam Russell

I was at the Engineers Ireland presentation. It was very good with good clear explanations - not just Metrolink, but also Dart expansion and Bus Connects.

Someone asked about the railway gauge - Irish or Standard. [4ft 8.5 inch or 1.6 metre] The difference is 16.5 cm or 6.5 inches.

Given that the line is completely segregated with no connection for the trams [not even an engineering link] there is no reason why one gauge should be chosen over another. If Irish gauge were to be chosen, and given that the Metrolink will run on existing standard gauge track from Ranelagh to Sandyford, that would require that track to be relaid. But bear in mind that some of this track is not at the correct inter-track spacing so would need relaying anyway. The track at Stillorgan is to be elevated to clear St Raphaels Road, and there is the problem of Dunville Ave and Cowper where roads will be cut or the track or road moved either up or down. More of the track is laid on ballst which means replacement would be easier.

So overall, the change to Irish gauge would not be impossibly expensive. So why change? Well, extending the line north by 5 km, gets it to Donabate which is due to be upgraded to Dart as far as Drogheda. Now if Metrolink was Irish gauge (and Dart compatible), Metro trains could serve Drogheda to Sandyford via Airport, and City Centre.

Now would that not be something?

marno21

I don't see the need for any metro service north of Swords (possibly Donabate for Metro connections)

Running Metros to Drogheda would require 4 tracking of that line along with reconfiguration of stations to accommodate Metro trams, along with signalling and other such differences. It would be cost prohibitive imo and I can think of many better ways of spending that money

Stephen15

Metro is a Dublin system. Drogheda is far too away from Dublin for a Metro system. Even Donabate is a bit far. A proper electrified commuter rail system would be best for these places.

Drogheda is over 50km from Dublin no Metro in the world goes that far out of the city.

Dats me

Drogheda is also in the DART expansion plan anyway, isn't it?

FunkyDa2

Stephen15 wrote: »

Metro is a Dublin system. Drogheda is far too away from Dublin for a Metro system. Even Donabate is a bit far. A proper electrified commuter rail system would be best for these places.

Drogheda is over 50km from Dublin no Metro in the world goes that far out of the city.

The Mandurah line of the Perth Metro runs for 70 kms with, admittedly, the bulk of it above ground.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I don't see the need for any metro service north of Swords (possibly Donabate for Metro connections)

Running Metros to Drogheda would require 4 tracking of that line along with reconfiguration of stations to accommodate Metro trams*, along with signalling and other such differences. It would be cost prohibitive imo and I can think of many better ways of spending that money

Stephen15 wrote: »

Metro is a Dublin system. Drogheda is far too away from Dublin for a Metro system. Even Donabate is a bit far. A proper electrified commuter rail system would be best for these places.

Drogheda is over 50km from Dublin no Metro in the world goes that far out of the city.

I think you are both missing the point.

If the Metro is Irish gauge, it would be Dart compatible (otherwise no point). Think Dart not Metro.

If it was Dart compatible, then it could run Drogheda - Airport - CC - Sandyford. No quad track needed. The frequency would be as needed.

The London Underground runs Bakerloo Line trains on the same tracks as heavy Overground trains between Queens Park and Harrow and Wealdstone, where the Bakerloo Line trains are Metro style with much lower floors than the heavy trains but still call to the same stations with the same platforms. It requires a step down into the Metro carriages. The same applies to other lines on the LU.

*I did not think anyone other than Colm McCarthy thought that the Metro vehicles were trams.

Grandeeod

Sam Russell wrote: »

I was at the Engineers Ireland presentation. It was very good with good clear explanations - not just Metrolink, but also Dart expansion and Bus Connects.

Someone asked about the railway gauge - Irish or Standard. [4ft 8.5 inch or 1.6 metre] The difference is 16.5 cm or 6.5 inches.

Given that the line is completely segregated with no connection for the trams [not even an engineering link] there is no reason why one gauge should be chosen over another. If Irish gauge were to be chosen, and given that the Metrolink will run on existing standard gauge track from Ranelagh to Sandyford, that would require that track to be relaid. But bear in mind that some of this track is not at the correct inter-track spacing so would need relaying anyway. The track at Stillorgan is to be elevated to clear St Raphaels Road, and there is the problem of Dunville Ave and Cowper where roads will be cut or the track or road moved either up or down. More of the track is laid on ballst which means replacement would be easier.

So overall, the change to Irish gauge would not be impossibly expensive. So why change? Well, extending the line north by 5 km, gets it to Donabate which is due to be upgraded to Dart as far as Drogheda. Now if Metrolink was Irish gauge (and Dart compatible), Metro trains could serve Drogheda to Sandyford via Airport, and City Centre.

Now would that not be something?

This thread was fairly bonkers many years ago before a harsh reality set in. Your post really reminds me of those bonkers times. So I guess I will read more crap stuff like your post for a while yet.

DART from Drogheda to Sandyford? Yeah right. Considering the difficulty we have getting a metro built in the first place, I am laughing my feckin arse off at the sheer stupidity of your suggestion.

specialbyte

I was also at the Engineer's Ireland event tonight. Not much that we haven't heard before tbh.

I was impressed with Aidan Foley who is the project director in TII for the Metro Link project. He seemed smart and empathic. Two good qualities for a complex project with many stakeholders.

There was an interesting discussion during the Q&A about the metro line's capacity. Aidan Foley says they have designed out to 2057, 30 years after opening. They will be able to reach their max theoretical capacity with the current design they have by running 60-65m vehicles at 90 second headways. Yes that's right they are thinking about 65m station boxes, not 90m. So given 550-600 people per vehicle we get a max capacity of 20-22k people per hour per direction.

So side note so we're all on the same page. There are two ways to increase a metro's capacity:
1. Run the metro vehicles more frequently
2. Use vehicles that can take more people

90 seconds is the gold standard for metro headways these days. The Victoria line in London is a great example of a line doing 100 second headways There are some great videos of that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ0zk4MWCQY and here: https://youtu.be/c8QKPgRa7sM?t=1m33s you can see just how tight 100 seconds is. Almost half of that time is just the train in the station letting passengers on and off. I don't know of any metro in the world that is doing better than 90 second headways. There isn't really much more we can reduce headways. The variability mostly comes from passengers getting on/off.

So the other option for increasing capacity is to use vehicles that carry more people. You've two options here. Change the internal layout so you can fit more people, i.e. remove seats. Or use a bigger vehicle. We have three dimensions: height, width and length. You can't increase the height or the vehicle won't fit in the tunnel and it doesn't really add much floor space. Width is hard without rebuilding platforms and relaying all the non-tunnelled track so the interaxis distance is bigger. So length is our only option. Longer vehicles need longer platforms that need to fit in longer stations. I don't know of any metro in the modern era that has expanded the length of operational stations. (Please let me know if you know of such a project).

So the question was are we closing off potential future capacity enhancement options that might be very necessary in a post-2057 world? It seems like we are designing in capacity constraints for 30+ years time. Infrastructure projects tend to have a long life. 100+ years isn't uncommon. Think of the tube lines in London or many of the bridges in Dublin, many well over 100 years old.

In my head there are only two downsides to longer stations: higher construction cost and more disruption from larger construction sites. We've already increased the cost of Metro Link over Metro North by opting for more bored tunnelling.

Thoughts? Would this just be over-engineering a solution to a problem that is for some engineer to solve in 40 years time? Or is this an example of Ireland being bad at long-term planning?

Sam Russell

Grandeeod wrote: »

This thread was fairly bonkers many years ago before a harsh reality set in. Your post really reminds me of those bonkers times. So I guess I will read more crap stuff like your post for a while yet.

DART from Drogheda to Sandyford? Yeah right. Considering the difficulty we have getting a metro built in the first place, I am laughing my feckin arse off at the sheer stupidity of your suggestion.

I was relaying (and expanding) on a point made at the Engineers Ireland presentation and questions afterwards.

It is most unlikely to be considered. It is just as bonkers to consider the Metros running at a frequency of one every 90 seconds. However, that is what the documentation on Metrolink claims. We cannot even get darts to run on time with a fifteen minute frequency.

Heartbreak Hank

specialbyte wrote: »

There was an interesting discussion during the Q&A about the metro line's capacity. Aidan Foley says they have designed out to 2057, 30 years after opening. They will be able to reach their max theoretical capacity with the current design they have by running 60-65m vehicles at 90 second headways. Yes that's right they are thinking about 65m station boxes, not 90m. So given 550-600 people per vehicle we get a max capacity of 20-22k people per hour per direction.

I thought I heard him say that the station boxes would be 110 or 130 m long. Longest tram he mentioned was 65 alright but I took from it that there could still be platform extension post 2057 even if they started at 65m.

The video will probably be put up on YouTube in the coming days. If I see it I will put it up.

Sam Russell

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

I thought I heard him say that the station boxes would be 110 or 130 m long. Longest tram he mentioned was 65 alright but I took from it that there could still be platform extension post 2057 even if they started at 65m.

The video will probably be put up on YouTube in the coming days. If I see it I will put it up.

He said the design was to accommodate 90 metre trains with station boxes of 110 metres or so, but that the current view is that 65 m trains at 2 minute headway would give adequate capacity to 2057. Their figures suggest that 15,000 passengers per direction per hour can be catered for with the current proposal - 65 metre trains and 2 minutes headway, with an annual capacity of 50 million passengers per year.