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

marno21

Dermot O'Leary on the radio at the minute saying Metrolink is not a good idea because it involves ripping up existing transport systems. The usual nonsense

JohnC.

Do you mean Michael O'Leary? Or is there a Dermot in a relevant field that isn't X-Factor or whatever?

LongboardPro

TII and the NTA really need to counter the bull**** being spewed where possible. Ffs

LXFlyer

marno21 wrote: »

Dermot O'Leary on the radio at the minute saying Metrolink is not a good idea because it involves ripping up existing transport systems. The usual nonsense

He may have a point regarding what may or may not need to be done to the Green Line - particularly if it involves raising the track bed to an over bridge level at Dunville Avenue (but not regarding Metro in general though).

Personally I think that the ensuing disruption would be more than than the area could take.

antoinolachtnai

In the grand overall context elevating over Dunville Avenue is just not that big a deal.

The benefit of upgrading the Green Line has not been well articulated.

Even if the line went on out to Templeogue, the Green Line Would still need to be linked to it at Charlemont and all the same works would be required.

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In the grand overall context elevating over Dunville Avenue is just not that big a deal.

The benefit of upgrading the Green Line has not been well articulated.

Even if the line went on out to Templeogue, the Green Line Would still need to be linked to it at Charlemont and all the same works would be required.

Elevating over Dunville Avenue would (I suspect) require a lengthy closure of up to a year as it would require a completely new track bed to be built - that would extend from Cowper to Charlemont.

That’s one heck of a distance and a closure for south Dublin commuters and roads to endure. I just don’t think that this aspect has really been thought through properly.

If the line went to Rathfarnham/Templeogue I would imagine that no closure would be needed on the Green Line - all that would be needed is an interchange facility at Charlemont. I don’t see any need to physically link the tracks?

antoinolachtnai

How would you increase frequency on green line with this arrangement? Turning back trains at Charlemont?

The number of people switching trains at Charlemont would be very great. You would need to build a big station to provide this.

A year seems like a very long occupation.

If the project is that big, then the tunnel could well be terminated south of Dunville Avenue. Not simple to do but definitely possible.

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

How would you increase frequency on green line with this arrangement? Turning back trains at Charlemont?

The number of people switching trains at Charlemont would be very great. You would need to build a big station to provide this.

A year seems like a very long occupation.

If the project is that big, then the tunnel could well be terminated south of Dunville Avenue. Not simple to do but definitely possible.

Seriously it would be a massive undertaking to rebuild the trackbed which would be necessary (I don’t think closing Dunville Avenue is frankly an option).

ncounties

FunkyDa2 wrote: »

Maybe it's time to start looking at developing Swords into a small city, in it's own right, with it's own financial/IT/insurance business district. The axis of the city could be shifted north towards the airport, with the possibility of developing a logical grid-like network of road and rail transport. :-/

Or how about we stem the very reason why Swords is expanding?

antoinolachtnai

LXFlyer wrote: »

Seriously it would be a massive undertaking to rebuild the trackbed which would be necessary (I don’t think closing Dunville Avenue is frankly an option).

Why not build the new trackbed in steel? Put down the supporting posts on either side of the rails first with the railway remaining open during the day, then put the new track deck on top during a short possesssion?

salmocab

I can see where the residents are coming from (I don’t agree with them) it’s a massive bit of work in their area and they will inevitably lose some of their routes across the area. The reality is that they are close enough to the city that PT isn’t as big a deal to them. They need to be made see the benefits and importantly the big hassles that are coming with the green line capacity if it’s not sorted.

tobsey

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Why not build the new trackbed in steel? Put down the supporting posts on either side of the rails first with the railway remaining open during the day, then put the new track deck on top during a short possesssion?

Luas’ overhead power cables would make that very difficult/dangerous if it was even possible

Grandeeod

LXFlyer wrote: »

Elevating over Dunville Avenue would (I suspect) require a lengthy closure of up to a year as it would require a completely new track bed to be built - that would extend from Cowper to Charlemont.

That’s one heck of a distance and a closure for south Dublin commuters and roads to endure. I just don’t think that this aspect has really been thought through properly.

If the line went to Rathfarnham/Templeogue I would imagine that no closure would be needed on the Green Line - all that would be needed is an interchange facility at Charlemont. I don’t see any need to physically link the tracks?

You and I both know this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much beyond a spoof job.

antoinolachtnai

Grandeeod wrote: »

You and I both know this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much beyond a spoof job.

The problem with Metro North and DU was that they were thought out in great detail but the schemes basically didn’t make sense and the CBAs were very weak. That’s why they got cancelled.

How to bridge a critical junction with a short possession is ultimately just a technical problem. They should have anticipated the issue a bit better, but so what?

They have also assessed options for joining to the green linesouthof Dunville Avenue and they can go back to those.

This scheme just makes a lot more economicsense overall than what went before and is a lot more recession-proof for that reason.

citizen6

If the tunnel emerges south of Beechwood, as Eamon Ryan and others have proposed, would that make the tie-in easier? It's a pretty narrow site, not very accessible, but there's no ramp to deal with, and no curve. Might offset some of the cost of the extra tunnelling.

And would that mean Luas running from Broombridge to Beechwood, with a Beechwood Metro stop just south of the Luas stop? And no Metro stop in Ranelagh? Ryan didn't give any details in his Metrolink submission.

monument

Grandeeod wrote: »

You and I both know this Metrolink thing hasn't really been thought out too much beyond a spoof job.

Your posts a parody of the nothing is going to happen point of view.

Anybody who has spent more than five seconds looking at the MetroLink documents — especially the drawings of the interchange stations and the green line portal — should know that the project has really strongly been thought about.

It’s a spoof job to have access to those documents and say otherwise.

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

How to bridge a critical junction with a short possession is ultimately just a technical problem. They should have anticipated the issue a bit better, but so what?

So what?

The problem Antoin is that this sort of nonsense - a lack of proper planning is what has us in the mess that we are in in the city centre - no one thought through the impact of LUAS cross-city and a far greater number of commuters who use the bus services have had their journey times extended. A service was implemented without the appropriate rolling stock being in place meaning people using the line south of Sandyford had their commute turned into a daily lottery and reliability destroyed.

In the same way, I’m seriously concerned about what any closure of the Green Line may involve in terms of distance and length of time, because any lengthy closure that is longer than the summer holiday months will cause absolute chaos. The roads simply could not cope with it. That’s a lot more than a technical problem.

I make no apologies for not being prepared to accept throwaway comments like yours above - it’s insulting to those of us who do have legitimate concerns about this.

antoinolachtnai

Everyone is sorry journeys in summer 2027 might be discommoded. But change has to happen.

Luas cross city was not a great project. Everyone who read the sequence of CBAs could see that.

What did you expect would happen? The luas problem didn’t happen because a few trams didn’t get delivered on time or had manufacturing faults. It happened because running major services on street is a really bad idea. It went ahead for mainly political reasons.

Metrolink is an ok project. It doesn’t have the same fundamental issues that Luas cross city had.

There are politically easier options but from what we see so far, they seem to deliver less value.

There will be disruption, sure. That is life in upgrading public transport. If they need to do an overpass in a 30 day possession they will do it. It is just engineering and resources. If it makes more sense they will tunnel to south of Beechwood. It’s a matter of finding the best solution.

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Everyone is sorry journeys in summer 2027 might be discommoded. But change has to happen.

Luas cross city was not a great project. Everyone who read the sequence of CBAs could see that.

What did you expect would happen? The luas problem didn’t happen because a few trams didn’t get delivered on time or had manufacturing faults. It happened because running major services on street is a really bad idea. It went ahead for mainly political reasons.

Metrolink is an ok project. It doesn’t have the same fundamental issues that Luas cross city had.

There are politically easier options but from what we see so far, they seem to deliver less value.

There will be disruption, sure. That is life in upgrading public transport. If they need to do an overpass in a 30 day possession they will do it. It is just engineering and resources. If it makes more sense they will tunnel to south of Beechwood. It’s a matter of finding the best solution.

The problem with LUAS CC is that the politicians were told one thing at the planning stage and reality turned out to be something else. At the same time politicians insisted on t opening without the appropriate rolling stock being in place.

I’m raising these questions now as I frankly do not want a repeat of that shambles.

I think you’re gravely underestimating the potential closure period and impact and until I see some clear hard evidence I’m not convinced by your arguments.

The TII engineers hinted at a much longer closure period at the consultation I attended.

antoinolachtnai

LXFlyer wrote: »

The problem with LUAS CC is that the politicians were told one thing at the planning stage and reality turned out to be something else. At the same time politicians insisted on t opening without the appropriate rolling stock being in place.

Anybody who thought Luas cross city was going to have adequate capacity was fooling themselves. The figures the decision were based upon were nonsense. I agree with you on that. These figures are still being promoted unchallenged.

I think you’re gravely underestimating the potential closure period and impact and until I see some clear hard evidence I’m not convinced by your arguments.

The TII engineers hinted at a much longer closure period at the consultation I attended.

They are just going to have to find a better way. You are quite right. We can’t have services disrupted for months on end.



These people seem to be able to bridge railway junctions with short disruptions.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/skye-overton-road-community-update-april-2018

Maybe we just need better engineers?

marno21

How tall was the old Harcourt line bridge at Beechwood? road clearance wise

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

How tall was the old Harcourt line bridge at Beechwood? road clearance wise

It was restricted - not sure how low, but not bus height.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was restricted - not sure how low, but not bus height.

May be less of a challenge reinstating it for low traffic only.

On a separate note, this may quieten some borderline Metro objectors:

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0522/965154-home_price_premium/

Zebra3

marno21 wrote: »

May be less of a challenge reinstating it for low traffic only.

On a separate note, this may quieten some borderline Metro objectors:

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0522/965154-home_price_premium/

You have to remember you’re dealing with idiots who want the public transport improvements, the house price increases but none of the inconvenience of any of it being built.

LXFlyer

marno21 wrote: »

May be less of a challenge reinstating it for low traffic only.

On a separate note, this may quieten some borderline Metro objectors:

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0522/965154-home_price_premium/

You still have to build a new elevated trackbed for a distance either side of the bridge.

That’s not something that can be done quickly - it’s a massive job.

antoinolachtnai

LXFlyer wrote: »

You still have to build a new elevated trackbed for a distance either side of the bridge.

That’s not something that can be done quickly - it’s a massive job.

It's 200 meters of girders certainly. It's a massive job. But why can't it be done quickly? (other than the foundation which can be done without closing the track).

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It's 200 meters of girders certainly. It's a massive job. But why can't it be done quickly? (other than the foundation which can be done without closing the track).

Can it?

Not a lot of space there!!

Also remember that an elevated stop will have to be included in the design.

antoinolachtnai

LXFlyer wrote: »

Can it?

Not a lot of space there!!

Also remember that an elevated stop will have to be included in the design.

There is a few feet either side of the track. You can work from the track at night. If you need to, you can temporarily take over the back gardens. All you really need to do in advance is to put down foundations.

This sort of thing needs a lot of concentrated resources, certainly. The only thing is that there will be a lot of resources available on the overall project and these can be allocated

They would put a station with stairs and elevators on the top of the bridge. The station needed new platforms built anyway and this would have entailed a possession in any case. If the stop in Danville Avenue were out of action for a few months, it would be no tolerable.

There is also the option of bringing the tunnel up south of Dunville Avenue. Maybe that would ultimately work out cheaper? I don't think it would, because if you did that you would need additional underground stations at Ranelagh and Beechwood.

There are similar challenges out in Stillorgan of course. It wouldn't be viable to cut the Luas off from its depot for months on end.

AAAAAAAAA

if you're elevating the track over dunville avenue you're probably looking at 500m of trackworks or more, as well as rebuilding the station entirely.

if you elevate the road over the track you're looking at about 100m of roadworks, but 16 houses lose access from their driveways to the road, and there's not really a handy place to leave their cars.

For me, the most obvious solution is to split the road into two cul-de-sacs, and have pedestrian/cyclist bridges. Anything else is a waste of money, and high capacity rail takes priority over local road

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is a few feet either side of the track. You can work from the track at night. If you need to, you can temporarily take over the back gardens. All you really need to do in advance is to put down foundations.

This sort of thing needs a lot of concentrated resources, certainly. The only thing is that there will be a lot of resources available on the overall project and these can be allocated

They would put a station with stairs and elevators on the top of the bridge. The station needed new platforms built anyway and this would have entailed a possession in any case. If the stop in Danville Avenue were out of action for a few months, it would be no tolerable.

There is also the option of bringing the tunnel up south of Dunville Avenue. Maybe that would ultimately work out cheaper? I don't think it would, because if you did that you would need additional underground stations at Ranelagh and Beechwood.

There are similar challenges out in Stillorgan of course. It wouldn't be viable to cut the Luas off from its depot for months on end.

Stillorgan isn’t in the same league as space exists to slew the tracks around the works site.