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

redfacedbear

I assume that the rumoured changes - monotunnel, no launch site at Na Fianna, will lead to an increase in the amount of time for completion.

Instead of 4 TBMs (2 heading south from Swords/Airport, 2 south from Na Fianna) you are now likely to only have 1 doing the full length which will surely be a much slower process?

jd

redfacedbear wrote: »

Instead of 4 TBMs (2 heading south from Swords/Airport, 2 south from Na Fianna) you are now likely to only have 1 doing the full length which will surely be a much slower process?

Tunnelling may take longer, other work (station construction etc) may be quicker, perhaps, if they go for a mono-tube.
There is still a lot of work to do once the TBM surfaces (somewhere!) in Ranelagh

CatInABox

STALL THE BALL FOLKS!!!!

Apparently the NTA didn't say anything about not using Na Fianna, but instead said that there would be "reduced disruption" at the site due to them considering a single bore tunnel instead of a twin bore tunnel. No decisions have been made concerning the use of Mobhi Rd as a TBM site. See RTE here.

"In relation to the sports grounds at Na Fianna and Home Farm, we have met with both of these clubs, and with adjacent schools and with Na Fianna and discussed the various issues and options with all of them," he said.

"We undertook to assess and evaluate these options further, and then to engage in further dialogue with those organisations when we had advanced that work."

"That assessment work is still ongoing, no decisions on any options at this location have yet been made."

He said further meetings with Na Fianna, Home Farm and the adjacent schools will take place once sufficient work is completed.

"We then expect to publish a revision to the metro-link proposal during August."

Mr Creegan indicated reduced disruption was likely on a site at Mobhi road, as the authority was considering a single bore, rather than a double bore tunnel.

What an epic screw up by everyone involved. This is why I think NTA needs to be more active in the press, while they haven't said anything wrong, leaving this impression out there that everything is hunky dory will be a disaster.

EDIT: Turns out RTE are misreporting what's been said. Marno has cleared it up below.

markpb

CatInABox wrote: »

What an epic screw up by everyone involved. This is why I think NTA needs to be more active in the press, while they haven't said anything wrong, leaving this impression out there that everything is hunky dory will be a disaster.

Isn't this a case of a politician opening their mouth and making stuff up? Wouldn't be the first time it happened and it won't be the last. It's hard to blame the NTA for that. They heard him babbing off and have issued a press release contradicting it.

CatInABox

markpb wrote: »

Isn't this a case of a politician opening their mouth and making stuff up? Wouldn't be the first time it happened and it won't be the last.

No, it's a case of a politician hearing what they want, and then parading around town shouting how they're victorious, and only they could have delivered such a victory for the local people.

LeinsterDub

CatInABox wrote: »

STALL THE BALL FOLKS!!!!

Apparently the NTA didn't say anything about not using Na Fianna, but instead said that there would be "reduced disruption" at the site due to them considering a single bore tunnel instead of a twin bore tunnel. No decisions have been made concerning the use of Mobhi Rd as a TBM site. See RTE here.



What an epic screw up by everyone involved. This is why I think NTA needs to be more active in the press, while they haven't said anything wrong, leaving this impression out there that everything is hunky dory will be a disaster.

Was anyone one under the impression that the NTA had agreed not to use Na Fianna? The station still has to be built . The tunnel portal is allegedly no longer in Na Fianna

CatInABox

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Was anyone one under the impression that the NTA had agreed not to use Na Fianna? The station still has to be built . The tunnel portal is allegedly no longer in Na Fianna

Oh, we were sure that the station would still be there, or around there, but it turns out that they didn't say that the tunnel portal wouldn't be there, which is what Noel Rock and Co are saying. They said they were looking at single bore instead of twin bore, which will most likely have a narrower footprint, which is where the "reduced disruption" has come from, and presumably is the cause of the confusion.

marno21

Grandeeod wrote: »

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

I have read that article, but Eamon Ryan should know at this stage that the Metro is going from Swords-Sandyford and will not be going to Rathfarnham. Any proposals like the above are only a distraction from the real issue and the main priority is getting this Metro built. Given the amount of giving out he does about the Metro North plan not being built he should be helping one Metro get built besides getting out the crayons.

cgcsb

At this stage we're only 9 years from the proposed completion date, it seems unachievable. At this stage we already have two MAJOR ISSUES(minor issues in the rest of the world mind, but Major issues in Ireland where every rambling nutter's opinion holds gargantuan sway):

-Na fianna
-Charlemont-Ranelagh

marno21

CatInABox wrote: »

STALL THE BALL FOLKS!!!!

Apparently the NTA didn't say anything about not using Na Fianna, but instead said that there would be "reduced disruption" at the site due to them considering a single bore tunnel instead of a twin bore tunnel. No decisions have been made concerning the use of Mobhi Rd as a TBM site. See RTE here.



What an epic screw up by everyone involved. This is why I think NTA needs to be more active in the press, while they haven't said anything wrong, leaving this impression out there that everything is hunky dory will be a disaster.

That's misreported.

Hugh Creegan said that if there was to be a single bore solution, there would be no tunnel boring machine launch site at Mobhi Road, however there would be a station as was always planned. The station construction would require a lesser area to be taken up, less trucks etc leaving the site and they remain in consultation with the affected parties at Mobhi Road and would be publishing more definitive plans in August.

The inability of the press to pay attention to what's going on is not helping here.

LeinsterDub

cgcsb wrote: »

-Charlemont-Ranelagh

Not an issue

marno21

Hugh Creegan of the NTA said in the Oireachtas yesterday that a report will be published in August of a more definitive route based on the public consultation, and the various characteristics published in the media since (single bore etc)

The single bore proposal does not alter the proposed timeline of the project and it remains a 2021 start and 2027 completion.

CatInABox

marno21 wrote: »

That's misreported.

Hugh Creegan said that if there was to be a single bore solution, there would be no tunnel boring machine launch site at Mobhi Road, however there would be a station as was always planned. The station construction would require a lesser area to be taken up, less trucks etc leaving the site and they remain in consultation with the affected parties at Mobhi Road and would be publishing more definitive plans in August.

The inability of the press to pay attention to what's going on is not helping here.

Ah, that makes more sense then, thanks. I'll edit the post above to be less dramatic.

cgcsb

Regarding the south west of the city I think an entirely new metro line will be the solution. By the time 2027 rolls around we'll need more capacity through the City anyway. A new line that would stop at Harold's X, The Coombe, The 4 Courts, Parnell/Upper O'Connell Street, Croke Park(New DART Station??) and Marino would provide good interchange opportunity and improve access the south west of Central Dublin.

antoinolachtnai

cgcsb wrote: »

At this stage we're only 9 years from the proposed completion date, it seems unachievable. At this stage we already have two MAJOR ISSUES(minor issues in the rest of the world mind, but Major issues in Ireland where every rambling nutter's opinion holds gargantuan sway):

-Na fianna
-Charlemont-Ranelagh

Two is really pretty good.

There seems to be the will to solve both of them.

tom1ie

cgcsb wrote: »

Regarding the south west of the city I think an entirely new metro line will be the solution. By the time 2027 rolls around we'll need more capacity through the City anyway. A new line that would stop at Harold's X, The Coombe, The 4 Courts, Parnell/Upper O'Connell Street, Croke Park(New DART Station??) and Marino would provide good interchange opportunity and improve access the south west of Central Dublin.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Not an issue

How is the charlemount tie in problems not an issue?
How are the at grade junctions on the green line further south of charlemount not an issue?

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

cgcsb wrote: »

At this stage we're only 9 years from the proposed completion date, it seems unachievable. At this stage we already have two MAJOR ISSUES(minor issues in the rest of the world mind, but Major issues in Ireland where every rambling nutter's opinion holds gargantuan sway):

-Na fianna
-Charlemont-Ranelagh

Two is really pretty good.

There seems to be the will to solve both of them.

Na Fianna can be solved with money, and a bit of work round.

Charlemont can be solved by going further south at a cost of €180 m or so. Tunnel cost is about €100 m per km, and Beechwood is 1.7 km south of Charlemont. It would save some of the conversion cost of the Charlemont to Beechwood section. Of course tunnelling under old buildings might not be wise.

cgcsb

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Not an issue

The depth of a very important sewer buried under the grand canal, the height of the required tie in at Charlemont, the short distance between the two and the confined urban environment means there is certainly a problem.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Na Fianna can be solved with money, and a bit of work round.

Charlemont can be solved by going further south at a cost of €180 m or so. Tunnel cost is about €100 m per km, and Beechwood is 1.7 km south of Charlemont. It would save some of the conversion cost of the Charlemont to Beechwood section. Of course tunnelling under old buildings might not be wise.

It can be solved, but is a problem none the less. If the tie in is relocated to Beechwood would the remaining green line operate on a Finglas-Beechwood basis with a new turn-around at Beechwood? that's bound to be disruptive.

bk

cgcsb wrote: »

The depth of a very important sewer buried under the grand canal, the height of the required tie in at Charlemont, the short distance between the two and the confined urban environment means there is certainly a problem.

They have more then 12 other options for the tie-in as outlined in the Green lie tie-in document on the Metrolink website.

Charlemont was their preferred option, but they had three other options that were shortlisted and which were almost as good.

South of Dunville Avenue in particular stood out as a really good looking option. It pretty much was as good on all other counts as Charlemont other then being I think roughly 70m more expensive due to slightly longer tunnel.

So if Charlemont is a non runner or more expensive due to the sewer, then it isn't a big deal to go with one of the runner up options.

After all that is why you look at different options, so that you have backups if something comes up during more detailed planning.

It isn't a big deal. And I think a south of Dunville Avenue option could also solve a bunch of other objections and difficulties relating to Dunville Avenue and Ranelagh.

marno21

Is there any information on what happens to stations where there is a tie in south of Beechwood? Will there be underground stations between SSG and Cowper?

bk

marno21 wrote: »

Is there any information on what happens to stations where there is a tie in south of Beechwood? Will there be underground stations between SSG and Cowper?

It seems to suggest there would be no extra stations. You are correct that is one of the things that makes that option less attractive then Charlemont.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

Is there any information on what happens to stations where there is a tie in south of Beechwood? Will there be underground stations between SSG and Cowper?

I think they would need one station as they need a station every km or so for ventilation, emergency egress etc.

They had one in mind at Ranelagh, I think.

markpb

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they would need one station as they need a station every km or so for ventilation, emergency egress etc.

Those things can be achieved without a station.

Sam Russell

markpb wrote: »

Those things can be achieved without a station.

Yes that is true, but that would leave a 2 km gap in stations between Beechwood (South) and SSG.

They could put a station in Sussex Sq (Leeson St), I suppose - that is halfway, and open space, with good connections for buses.

Grandeeod

marno21 wrote: »

I have read that article, but Eamon Ryan should know at this stage that the Metro is going from Swords-Sandyford and will not be going to Rathfarnham. Any proposals like the above are only a distraction from the real issue and the main priority is getting this Metro built. Given the amount of giving out he does about the Metro North plan not being built he should be helping one Metro get built besides getting out the crayons.

I'm sure you read the article. Eamon Ryan clearly stated the reasons for considering running it to Rathfarnham. I'm not arguing his case for him. I'm simply saying that he has suggested an alternative route and provided reasons for why he's suggesting it. There's a real sense of fear in this thread everytime anything remotely negative or different is projected. I guess that's based on metrolink supporters knowing that there is a very real chance of it not getting built at all or as suggested while not all will admit it. Eamon Ryan is the least of your worries.

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes that is true, but that would leave a 2 km gap in stations between Beechwood (South) and SSG.

They could put a station in Sussex Sq (Leeson St), I suppose - that is halfway, and open space, with good connections for buses.

Although surely the luas would cover that gap

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

Although surely the luas would cover that gap

Yes, but why leave such a gap. Sussex Sq is quite a bit East, and connects with the Leeson St bus services - 46A, 145, plus others.

I think it would spread the goodness that is Metrolink.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes, but why leave such a gap. Sussex Sq is quite a bit East, and connects with the Leeson St bus services - 46A, 145, plus others.

I think it would spread the goodness that is Metrolink.

Why would we not bring the tunnel further west on an arc before it ties back in at beechwood or further south at windy Arbour. There’s no point duplicating so much catchment area that’s already served by Luas green. Instead of going east go west. That’s where the stations are needed!

strassenwo!f

Where is this 'Sussex Square' that is being mentioned?