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

plodder

Just heard Noel Rock on there milking it for all it's worth. Original plan would have meant "Virtual shutdown of two schools" - slightly hysterical exaggeration there. But he mentioned the new plan was for a single bore tunnel. Is there anything published yet with the new plan details?

He also mentioned that the single bore approach would be cheaper(?), in that kind of way, that implies the politicians had to tell the engineers their job. It must be very frustrating having to deal with people like that.

antoinolachtnai

plodder wrote: »

Just heard Noel Rock on there milking it for all it's worth. Original plan would have meant "Virtual shutdown of two schools" - slightly hysterical exaggeration there. But he mentioned the new plan was for a single bore tunnel. Is there anything published yet with the new plan details?

He also mentioned that the single bore approach would be cheaper(?), in that kind of way, that implies the politicians had to tell the engineers their job. It must be very frustrating having to deal with people like that.

They are entitled to keep on looking at the options. It is good to be a bit dynamic about it.

Twin tunnels isn’t necessarily cheaper. There is less rock but more tunnel surface area. There is no need to blast crossover tunnels.

Settlement was not an issue on the large bore tunnels for the Port Tunnel. It really depends how deep you are.

Bray Head

Does any of this slow the delivery of the Metrolink?

Presumably likely changes on the back of feedback from public consultation were built into the timetable.

jd

Paul McAuliffe and Noel Rock will be fighting over the last seat in Dublin North West, hence the show-boating by the pair of them.

CatInABox

jd wrote: »

Paul McAuliffe and Noel Rock will be fighting over the last seat in Dublin North West, hence the show-boating by the pair of them.

Yes, it's the same on the south side with McDowell looking to get back into the Dail on the back of his opposition to Metrolink.

The sad thing is that it might work. Once it's built, people from the local areas along the line will wonder how they ever lived without it, but until we're at that point there's a political benefit to "listening to local opposition".

salmocab

I have a suspicion naFianna mgt won’t be as happy as some think. They had some nice scope to make a lot of cash for the club. Everything could have been worked out with a bit of imagination and they could have ended up with better facilities and their debt of 2million? wiped out.

CatInABox

salmocab wrote: »

I have a suspicion naFianna mgt won’t be as happy as some think. They had some nice scope to make a lot of cash for the club. Everything could have been worked out with a bit of imagination and they could have ended up with better facilities and their debt of 2million? wiped out.

They still have that opportunity. The station has to go around there somewhere. Homefarm are probably ahead of them now, but it still needs to be sorted. They'll also get some money for the use/CPO of their land out in Dardistown, if that's used.

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

They still have that opportunity. The station has to go around there somewhere. Homefarm are probably ahead of them now, but it still needs to be sorted. They'll also get some money for the use/CPO of their land out in Dardistown, if that's used.

Yeah but they could have got a lot for the loss of clubhouse revenue which a lot of the document they released was concerned with (I’m not knocking them by the way, if it was my sports club I’m sure I’d have been happy to squeeze all we could out of govt).

MJohnston

I can't speak for the actual planners, but if I was designing an infrastructure project that was politically dubious (in any western country other than Germany), I'd definitely build in a lot of 'sacrificial lambs' to slaughter at the right time. Like Scotty on the Enterprise sandbagging his repair estimates so he looks like a miracle worker when he beats them.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Average? Average doesn’t cut it i’m afraid. You will have massive backups on the platforms and then bunching of trains if you can’t keep the trains regular. Operating a train system at this level is not like running a few buses.

But 'Average' seems to cut it at the moment, if one is to go by the LUAS website, where they give maximum, minimum and average intervals between trams.

At present, the average interval is 4 minutes at peak times at, say, Ranelagh, but the peak time interval ranges from 2-7 minutes.

If you add 5 trams per hour (25% extra capacity), in an initial upgrade phase, you reduce the average to 3 minutes. Just as all the trams now are not exactly 4 minutes apart, they would not all be exactly 3 minutes apart.

Are you suggesting that there is some magic time, perhaps around 3.5 minutes, where the system changes from one which runs smoothly (as now) to one where there are 'massive backups' and 'bunching'?

On systems like Manchester's, where there are trams coming from all directions and sharing a central section, there aren't massive backups. It should be even easier where the driver of a tram only has to be aware of the location of the tram in front to prevent problems like this, and does not have to deal with trams emerging from other lines.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Manchester as you rightly say has many converging lines which share a central section which is quite well segregated. It’s very different. (I mentioned 30 because our co-poster said there were hundreds or even thousands of cities operating tram lines or train lines at these frequencies.)

And there are. As I mentioned above, most cities with well-developed and comprehensive tram networks have several competing lines so don't need to have such frequencies out in the sticks, but frequencies of every minute or two in a central section are very common.

Obviously management of the interaction of trams with other road traffic is critical, and presumably Dublin is currently on a very steep learning curve after the construction of the BXD line. I doubt if any of the cities which have high tram throughputs in central areas got it right immediately.

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Have you got a model for how you can have a 2 minute service on a line where trams have to cross the opposing path to reverse (as they would at St Stephens Green siding?

The line isn’t grade separated or anything near it anyway. Do you have a model for managing the road junctions so that trams can be kept evenly spaced as they go toward the city?

Where is your proof that trains can be run every three minutes from St Stephens Green to Parnell St? Sure it can be done on a sunny day.

Have you done a study to confirm that there will be little significant population growth on the corridor for the next 20 years?

The first 3 questions are very relevant. I'd be highly surprised if the existing Luas arrangement could be run more frequently at peak times.

The last one is highly dubious, I've previously posted the Dept. of Environment's map of underdeveloped residential-zones sites in Dublin. The Green line from SSG to Sandyford has negligible amounts within 1km walking of it. I'd argue the onus is on the proposers of Metrolink to model where this increased use of the green line part is going to come from. Precisely why we, the public, are owed accurate and relevant CBAs at an early stage of the development of this plan.

antoinolachtnai

You are assuming traffic flows smoothly. If it did you could add all the trams you wanted. But it doesn’t. It is frequently interrupted by traffic signals. As the gap between trains becomes closer to the cycle time of the lights it is going to work less and less well. There will be more and more bunching.

If the frequency is uneven the loading will be uneven. If the loading is uneven you won’t have much extra capacity (or comfort) for your investment in extra trams.

Your point about trams in other cities is well made. But the green line is a segregated line, not a typical tram line. That is why it is attracting a lot of custom and filling the city centre capacity.

At the same time there are very few obvious places to run further trams in Dublin.

I am still looking forward to seeing this list of thirty cities.

marno21

lucernarian wrote: »

The first 3 questions are very relevant. I'd be highly surprised if the existing Luas arrangement could be run more frequently at peak times.

The last one is highly dubious, I've previously posted the Dept. of Environment's map of underdeveloped residential-zones sites in Dublin. The Green line from SSG to Sandyford has negligible amounts within 1km walking of it. I'd argue the onus is on the proposers of Metrolink to model where this increased use of the green line part is going to come from. Precisely why we, the public, are owed accurate and relevant CBAs at an early stage of the development of this plan.

The Green Line hasn't ended at Sandyford for several years now. There is development taking place beyond Sandyford, Cherrywood for one and an extension to Bray on the way.

lucernarian

CatInABox wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at. The Metrolink process for the northside (Swords to City Centre) consisted of a process that examined 34 feasible routes, with ten examined in detail, of which one was chosen as the emerging preferred route. Following the public consultation, they'll published the preferred route in time.

As to the routes examined on the southside, I'd hazard a guess at one, and only one, the Green line Luas route. This project was always going to tie with the Luas, so the two studies that they conducted were to examine the Luas tie in, and the work required to upgrade the Green Line. No other routes needed looking at.

This near-obsession with the luas tie in is bringing us straight to the obvious conclusion that's been repeated here my me and a small number of other posters. Michael McDowell will ride in like one of the horsemen of the apocalypse to do whatever he can to amplify the well-heeled NIMBY concerns.

This concept, repeated here over and over, of "political buy-in north & south" is increasingly being shown for the crock it is.

Can anyone here *possibly* show how a metro to Swords and the Airport is not feasible without the green line tie-in and conversion?

lucernarian

marno21 wrote: »

The Green Line hasn't ended at Sandyford for several years now. There is development taking place beyond Sandyford, Cherrywood for one and an extension to Bray on the way.

That's frankly obvious to everyone. What's your point exactly? I'm talking about the stretch from SSG to Sandyford. If there's a proposal to have metrolink run all the way to Cherrywood, then I'd probably have said SSG or Charlemont or wherever to Cherrywood.

Was there something inaccurate there, or is this because I left out a comma or what?

Zebra3

lucernarian wrote: »

This near-obsession with the luas tie in is bringing us straight to the obvious conclusion that's been repeated here my me and a small number of other posters. Michael McDowell will ride in like one of the horsemen of the apocalypse to do whatever he can to amplify the well-heeled NIMBY concerns.

This concept, repeated here over and over, of "political buy-in north & south" is increasingly being shown for the crock it is.

Can anyone here *possibly* show how a metro to Swords and the Airport is not feasible without the green line tie-in and conversion?

McDowell and that mob of NIMBYs do not represent all of the south part of the ML and neither should it be entertained anywhere that they do.

bk

lucernarian wrote: »

That's frankly obvious to everyone. What's your point exactly? I'm talking about the stretch from SSG to Sandyford. If there's a proposal to have metrolink run all the way to Cherrywood, then I'd probably have said SSG or Charlemont or wherever to Cherrywood.

Was there something inaccurate there, or is this because I left out a comma or what?

Yes, your argument is very inaccurate.

As you well know, the Green line runs far south of Sandyford and includes some of the greatest development sites in the whole city. Sites that will give us tens of thousands of new homes.

While upgrading the green line only goes as far as Sandyford. It will give us the capacity for people from these new developments south of Sandyford to transfer onto the Metro at Sandyford.

If we don't upgrade to Metro, then the Luas trams will already be full by Sandyford and people from their in will be left standing on the platforms not able to get onto full trams.

It really is that simple.

marno21

bk wrote: »

Yes, your argument is very inaccurate.

As you well know, the Green line runs far south of Sandyford and includes some of the greatest development sites in the whole city. Sites that will give us tens of thousands of new homes.

While upgrading the green line only goes as far as Sandyford. It will give us the capacity for people from these new developments south of Sandyford to transfer onto the Metro at Sandyford.

If we don't upgrade to Metro, then the Luas trams will already be full by Sandyford and people from their in will be left standing on the platforms not able to get onto full trams.

It really is that simple.

Thank you bk. It really is that simple.

Zebra3 wrote: »

McDowell and that mob of NIMBYs do not represent all of the south part of the ML and neither should it be entertained anywhere that they do.

Exactly. People living close to city centres need to accept the fact that they are going to have transport corridors running through their areas as the city doesn't stop at the end of their property.

They could be in a much worse situation such as parts of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow where they have elevated urban motorways running through the suburbs.

antoinolachtnai

lucernarian wrote: »

This near-obsession with the luas tie in is bringing us straight to the obvious conclusion that's been repeated here my me and a small number of other posters. Michael McDowell will ride in like one of the horsemen of the apocalypse to do whatever he can to amplify the well-heeled NIMBY concerns.

This concept, repeated here over and over, of "political buy-in north & south" is increasingly being shown for the crock it is.

Can anyone here *possibly* show how a metro to Swords and the Airport is not feasible without the green line tie-in and conversion?

It is feasible. It just isn’t very attractive economically.

Metro North was that. The CBA just wasn’t that attractive. And the Green Line would still need to be upgraded.

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is feasible. It just isn’t very attractive economically.

Metro North was that. The CBA just wasn’t that attractive. And the Green Line would still need to be upgraded.

CBA is dependent on the assumptions.

According to the CSO, the population could exceed 6.69 million by 2051 - that is in 33 years time. Now where will all those extra people live and where will they work? And how will they travel to work?

If anything, the CBA for Metrolink has not made assumptions based on this type of projection. Luas is heaving now - and has exceeded the projections made for it. It will be the same for Metrolink.

bk

The "funny" thing about all this, whether people like it or not, those areas south of Sandyford, the Cherrywood SDZ, etc. will be developed and will add tens of thousands of extra passengers to the Luas.

Those folks from Sandyford in will then likely be screaming bloody murder when they realise they can no longer get on and use the Luas and then you can bet they will be screaming for the Luas line to be upgraded.

All you have to do is look at the C&T forum a few months ago when the cross city opened and as a result increased demand meant people at a few of these stations were getting left behind due to full trams and they had to walk and try and use the bus instead. People were not happy at all.

Now that was a temporary problem and it has been resolved for now with the introduction of a couple of 54m trams.

However we really have pushed on-street running Luas as far as it can go between 3 minute frequency and 54m trams (longest in the world). With tens of thousands of new apartments coming on stream in Cherrywood over the next 10 years, the Luas is going to be bursting at the seams again in 10 years. And those folks from Sandyford in are going to be screaming murder if Luas isn't upgraded to Metro, because otherwise they will be left standing on the platforms.

Kevtherev1

Was on bus through rathmines the other day. I see Eamon Ryan has organized a metro meeting for next wed 27th in Terenure. To push his Charlemont metro tunnel to rathmines proposal no doubt.



I dont see how he can convince the govt and NTA to spend extra 1.5 billion or so to fund it. Anyone here thinking of going to it. The current EPR for metrolink is the only game in town



http://www.eamonryan.ie/news/2018/5/9/metrolink-should-be-extended-to-rathfarnham

marno21

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

Was on bus through rathmines the other day. I see Eamon Ryan has organized a metro meeting for next wed 27th in Terenure. To push his Charlemont metro tunnel to rathmines proposal no doubt.



I dont see how he can convince the govt and NTA to spend extra 1.5 billion or so to fund it. Anyone here thinking of going to it. The current EPR for metrolink is the only game in town



http://www.eamonryan.ie/news/2018/5/9/metrolink-should-be-extended-to-rathfarnham

Eamon Ryan was in Government for 4 years and made no attempt to build a Metro to Rathfarnham meanwhile the biggest transport investment in the history of the state was ongoing with billions being spent annually on transport capex.

Fluff and bluster. It would be more in his line to be politically backing the existing Metrolink and making sure that gets built than this crayonism

tom1ie

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

Was on bus through rathmines the other day. I see Eamon Ryan has organized a metro meeting for next wed 27th in Terenure. To push his Charlemont metro tunnel to rathmines proposal no doubt.



I dont see how he can convince the govt and NTA to spend extra 1.5 billion or so to fund it. Anyone here thinking of going to it. The current EPR for metrolink is the only game in town



http://www.eamonryan.ie/news/2018/5/9/metrolink-should-be-extended-to-rathfarnham

I got an invite to it,but I’m not sure I can make it. If I go I’ll be supporting the idea of a sw tunnel AFTER metrolink gets tied into the green line and the green line is upgraded.
What I will be suggesting however is the tie in occurs north of windy Arbour @ milltown gc and the tunnel runs via rathmines with a station positioned in rathmines.

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

Eamon Ryan was in Government for 4 years and made no attempt to build a Metro to Rathfarnham meanwhile the biggest transport investment in the history of the state was ongoing with billions being spent annually on transport capex.

Fluff and bluster. It would be more in his line to be politically backing the existing Metrolink and making sure that gets built than this crayonism

First and foremost, I am not a Green Party supporter. In fact I am absolutely in general disgust at all political parties regarding transport matters. However Eamon Ryan, for all his faults, clearly states his opinion in the link below. He addresses a lot of aspects and makes far more sense in his opinions than idiots like Noel Rock.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/eamon-ryan-metro-tunnel-should-be-extended-to-rathfarnham-1.3502030?utm_source=lunchtime_digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_digest

BOHtox

Forgive my ignorance but I have two questions.

1) Does a bore simply mean how many tunnels there are, not how many tracks? There will presumably be two tracks but they will be accomodated in the one tunnel? That's my understanding but I could be completely wrong

2) Is the consultation phase going well? Few problems came up but most have been avoided. Is it looking good to advance to the next stage or is the problem in Dublin Bay South serious?

Thanks

salmocab

BOHtox wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but I have two questions.

1) Does a bore simply mean how many tunnels there are, not how many tracks? There will presumably be two tracks but they will be accomodated in the one tunnel? That's my understanding but I could be completely wrong

2) Is the consultation phase going well? Few problems came up but most have been avoided. Is it looking good to advance to the next stage or is the problem in Dublin Bay South serious?

Thanks

Yeah the bores are the amount of tunnels it will be big enough now for two tracks. Single bore means much bigger tunnel so more waste out of the ground.

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

Yeah the bores are the amount of tunnels it will be big enough now for two tracks. Single bore means much bigger tunnel so more waste out of the ground.

If you look at the Port tunnel, there is obviously room for two trains side by side. A twin bore would have tunnels a little bit bigger than the train. With twin tunnels, they can be far enough apart to build a platform between them making stations easy to build. For safety, they must put connecting tunnels every 500 metres to allow emergency connection should a train breakdown or there is an emergency.

Single tunnels have more spoil, but only one TBM. The geology of the ground might suggest one or other solution. They have the experience of the Port tunnel to go on.

Single tunnels have the platforms outside the tunnel and not an island platform, making stations bigger.

Single tunnels are deeper, making stations more expensive due to longer stairways and longer escalators.

Overall, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

CatInABox

I seriously think that they'll go with their monotube option now, seeing as the Dublin Port Tunnel TBMs were only slightly smaller than what's required now, 12m versus 12.5m.

Reading through the tunnel configuration doc, it seems to me that the monotube is their second choice, not that I can tell much from it. They seem to highlight so many pluses with the monotube option, i.e. station excavation being easier as the stations will be within the tunnel itself, station upgrades from 60m to 90m are trivial to do, etc.

plodder

marno21 wrote: »

Eamon Ryan was in Government for 4 years and made no attempt to build a Metro to Rathfarnham meanwhile the biggest transport investment in the history of the state was ongoing with billions being spent annually on transport capex.

Fluff and bluster. It would be more in his line to be politically backing the existing Metrolink and making sure that gets built than this crayonism

Playing the same game as the rest of them. Using the project to further his own political career. Any politician who just wants to see it happen would get behind it, and start explaining it to people.