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

Irish Steve

crushproof wrote: »

Good question. Probably a silly questions, but is there a vague chance that they prepared some sort of station underneath Terminal 2....or am I away with faeries? :rolleyes:

Yes, the last time this was being discussed, the metro station was somewhere in the vicinity of the Great Southern hotel. so almost outside the central core area of the airport, and nowhere near either of the present terminals.

Dardania

Irish Steve wrote: »

Yes, the last time this was being discussed, the metro station was somewhere in the vicinity of the Great Southern hotel. so almost outside the central core area of the airport, and nowhere near either of the present terminals.

Sounds a bit like Barcelona airport so

plodder

Irish Steve wrote: »

Yes, the last time this was being discussed, the metro station was somewhere in the vicinity of the Great Southern hotel. so almost outside the central core area of the airport, and nowhere near either of the present terminals.

I think you're confusing it with one of the other plans that did not enter the airport. The original Metro North plan had the airport stop at the bus stop area to the East of the T1 multi-storey car park. Given that it's tunnelling under the airport at great expense, it's reasonable to expect the stop to be pretty close (if it ever goes ahead etc. etc..)

MJohnston

Irish Steve wrote: »

Yes, the last time this was being discussed, the metro station was somewhere in the vicinity of the Great Southern hotel. so almost outside the central core area of the airport, and nowhere near either of the present terminals.

I think that was the Airport-LUAS, not MN

Irish Steve

plodder wrote: »

I think you're confusing it with one of the other plans that did not enter the airport. The original Metro North plan had the airport stop at the bus stop area to the East of the T1 multi-storey car park. Given that it's tunnelling under the airport at great expense, it's reasonable to expect the stop to be pretty close (if it ever goes ahead etc. etc..)

I was basing it on the map that's online, showing the route, that seems to be pretty clear about the location of the route, and it's closer to the Great Southern than it is to either of the terminals. It's in a number of places, including threads on this site.

plodder

Irish Steve wrote: »

I was basing it on the map that's online, showing the route, that seems to be pretty clear about the location of the route, and it's closer to the Great Southern than it is to either of the terminals. It's in a number of places, including threads on this site.

You can't judge by those maps. They only show an "indicative route" (whatever that means). It is sloppy though and not an unreasonable thing to conclude. This was from the ABP inspector's report:

The Airport Stop is an underground stop with a 14m wide island platform located east of the
existing multi-storey car park and the terminal buildings. It will be accessed from the
airport’s Ground Transportation Centre. Piled walls will be installed down to rock level
around the perimeter of the stop box. The ground within the box will be excavated in stages.
The Stop will take between two and three years to complete

MJohnston

I wonder which MSCP they were meaning there - I would thought the "Ground Transportation Centre" would be either the T2 rental car area, or the T2 taxi/bus area, but those are south of the T2 MSCP, not east.

plodder

MJohnston wrote: »

I wonder which MSCP they were meaning there - I would thought the "Ground Transportation Centre" would be either the T2 rental car area, or the T2 taxi/bus area, but those are south of the T2 MSCP, not east.

It was designed before T2 was built. From what I can see, the exact spot was immediately to the east of the church in area that is occupied by a surface carpark now. It's about the same distance from both terminals.

MJohnston

plodder wrote: »

It was designed before T2 was built. From what I can see, the exact spot was immediately to the east of the church in area that is occupied by a surface carpark now. It's about the same distance from both terminals.

You mean this area?

plodder

MJohnston wrote: »

You mean this area?

It looks more like the car park just above that one on your picture.

iopener

My uncle works in the daa he told me years ago that was a area reserved for a metro stop downstairs in T1, chech in area 13 I think, are lingus were using it for a few years during the "boom" when upstairs was mental with people queuing out the doors. Remember those days anyone

Idbatterim

it appears that be it located under T1 or either of those car parks, it is a minute or two walk to both terminals, no joke travelator, under T1 would be great, but even one of those car parks is fine...

GerardKeating

iopener wrote: »

My uncle works in the daa he told me years ago that was a area reserved for a metro stop downstairs in T1, chech in area 13 I think, are lingus were using it for a few years during the "boom" when upstairs was mental with people queuing out the doors. Remember those days anyone

T1 was built in the 70's, long long time before Metro/DART links to the airport were thought of.

T1 has a large cavernous basement, which was used for Storage, it was so big, the staff refered to it as the "Train Station", and so a Myth was born.

Eventually this space was used for extra check-in desks while they were waiting for T2 to be built. Not sure if it is still open.

Idbatterim

T1 was built in the 70's, long long time before Metro/DART links to the airport were thought of.

T1 has a large cavernous basement, which was used for Storage, it was so big, the staff refered to it as the "Train Station", and so a Myth was born.

Eventually this space was used for extra check-in desks while they were waiting for T2 to be built. Not sure if it is still open.

i have been down in the Aerlingus check in area before area 13 or 14 IIRC, the basement must be a lot bigger than that, if it were referred as the "train station" it would be amazing if that area could be used for the metro, but is it a goer?

Sam Russell

medoc wrote: »

What location at the airport has been proposed for the metro north station? How well do people here think it will integrate with the current terminal layouts etc?

crushproof wrote: »

Good question. Probably a silly questions, but is there a vague chance that they prepared some sort of station underneath Terminal 2....or am I away with faeries? :rolleyes:

Grandeeod wrote: »

You aren't just away with the fairies, you are actively smoking the best weed ever with them.:D

alias no.9 wrote: »

There's a rail concourse under T1 believe it or not

Not sure about T2

Grandeeod wrote: »

No there isn't. It's a sub basement and not intended to be a rail concourse.

T2 has nothing despite it being built while MN was in development.

Idbatterim wrote: »

it appears that be it located under T1 or either of those car parks, it is a minute or two walk to both terminals, no joke travelator, under T1 would be great, but even one of those car parks is fine...

Idbatterim wrote: »

i have been down in the Aerlingus check in area before area 13 or 14 IIRC, the basement must be a lot bigger than that, if it were referred as the "train station" it would be amazing if that area could be used for the metro, but is it a goer?

It is obviously going to be built under Terminal Four, just South of Swords.

Sam Russell

Joking aside, it should be a Dart line, with Dart rolling stock, with a connection to the Clongriffin spur.

The two minute frequency is just as much a fiction as the whole project.

Grandeeod

Sam Russell wrote: »

Joking aside, it should be a Dart line, with Dart rolling stock, with a connection to the Clongriffin spur.

The two minute frequency is just as much a fiction as the whole project.

Yep. DART from Sandyford to Donabate via Dublin airport and Swords. Add in the original DU plan and you have a winner. However once again I have to stress that history can teach us here. While not wanting to draw fire from anyone, luas and metro plans seemed to originate from the difficulty between Government and CIE. The creation of the RPA backs that up. But the original DTO had some weird heads in it that embraced light rail/Metro and seemed to jettison the biggest rail success story in the history of the state...the DART. (apart from the interconnector idea.)

D.L.R.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Joking aside, it should be a Dart line, with Dart rolling stock, with a connection to the Clongriffin spur.

The two minute frequency is just as much a fiction as the whole project.

I think the gauge/stock used is less important than the overall capacity.

Only 2 central stations with 60m platforms, lots of transfers to/from luas cross city to make up the gap. Sounds like a recipe for severe congestion and lots of inefficiency.

The idea of building some headroom into a project doesn't seem to factor into it. Look at the M50 - same mentality. Build the bare minimum. That's a worry.

Motorway to Tuam though. I ask you.

murphaph

Any metro, tram or friggin bus route that passes under Drumcondra station and doesn't provide an interchange with heavy rail there is an embarrassment to the so called designers. You'd be shot on sight for ignoring a connection like that in any serious country.

Winters

The original RPA designs led by Rory O'Connor had connection between the Drumcondra metro station and the Drumcondra CIE station. This was via access at the southern most point of the metro station box.

An interesting issue however is clear passage between the two modes. The St. Stephen's Green underground designs included barriers between heavy rail and metro. i.e you had to leave the metro via barriers to re-enter the heavy rail via barriers. As far as I remember Drumcondra was the same.

Integration by foot easier than by CIE/RPA politics it seems.

Idbatterim

Im going to shorten a point, I made on other threads and possibly this one. We have a fit for purpose MN good to go, superior to NMN, the "savings" according to Aecom is €461,000,000 so after all the the new design, consultation, planning etc has been gone through, what will that cost? Then inflation has to be born in mind. then a large amount of money spent on any project will go back to to the government anyway. Here is one saving, if the revised figures arent up to what it was originally envisaged they would be (which is BS by the way and we all know it, it just suits them to say it) simply purchase less rolling stock. At least that can be sorted very easily. So we are going to redraw the wheel, for an inferior solution, that doesnt have planning, to "save" peanuts in the scheme of things... As in the Irish version of save, anywhere else, the cost of going for the inferior option, would be seen as too high. Let me repeat, Dublin is going to wait 6 years minimum for an inferior solution, to save as good as nothing?! So is my verdict accurate or am I totally off?

Zubeneschamali

Idbatterim wrote: »

Dublin is going to wait 6 years minimum for an inferior solution, to save as good as nothing?! So is my verdict accurate or am I totally off?

The point of this plan is not that we'll get an inferior MN a bit late. It is that we will not get MN at all during the life of this plan.

What we get (if ever) will be in a future plan (if any). So whatever this plan says about MN doesn't matter at all.

Idbatterim

The point of this plan is not that we'll get an inferior MN a bit late. It is that we will not get MN at all during the life of this plan.

What we get (if ever) will be in a future plan (if any). So whatever this plan says about MN doesn't matter at all.

exactly so the farce that I have described, steps up a gear when you take this into consideration...

Art(h)ur

This debate got me thinking: initially I took as a given that MN + DU is the perfect plan in the long as run and politicians should be pushed in that direction using all possible means. It now appears that DU + Airport spur (or Swords via Airport spur) is superior as it would be:

1) cheaper - only one city centre tunnel instead of two
2) connecting Dublin Airport with the entire country (via national rail network) instead of connecting with some parts of Dublin only
3) avoiding MN issues like lack of physical connection to any other line, need for separate rolling stock (and potential gauge differences), lack of route flexibility (no chance of e.g. a direct service to Cork with MN) etc.

And that's on top of the main advantage of DU over MN: a massive improvement to all commutters across Dublin versus mainly to residents of Swords, Ballymun, tourists and businessmen.

So in fact the Facebookers could be right: there is no point in building Metro North! All available resources should be concentrated at getting Dart Underground done (the whole lot, incl. electrification to Maynooth and Balbriggan, end of city centre resignalling saga), just add the Airport (or Swords and Airport) spur?

Obviously, the practicalities of existing Railway Orders are an obstacle but new ones are envisaged by the current announcement anyway, so... Any views?

markpb

Art(h)ur wrote: »

It now appears that DU + Airport spur (or Swords via Airport spur) is superior as it would be:

Not this again. DU and MN solve different problems. Comparing the two is ludicrous.

Grandeeod

Winters wrote: »

The original RPA designs led by Rory O'Connor had connection between the Drumcondra metro station and the Drumcondra CIE station. This was via access at the southern most point of the metro station box.

An interesting issue however is clear passage between the two modes. The St. Stephen's Green underground designs included barriers between heavy rail and metro. i.e you had to leave the metro via barriers to re-enter the heavy rail via barriers. As far as I remember Drumcondra was the same.

Integration by foot easier than by CIE/RPA politics it seems.

For the record, Rory O'Connor presided over an initial MN design that ignored the Maynooth line entirely, despite passing under it. The MN route at the time passed under the old Smurfit complex towards Botanic Road. The original design was more about serving existing and potential development rather than existing PT and integration. That changed after public intervention and media coverage.

liam24

markpb wrote: »

Not this again. DU and MN solve different problems. Comparing the two is ludicrous.

I think his point is that DU plus a spur solves far more problems than MN, so it seems ridiculous to build the latter first. In fact, the spur solves the major problems which MN solves, namely a link to the airport and Swords. Ballymun could easily be serviced by Luas in the future.

It also solves major problems which exist with MN alone, namely that the airport is not linked to either of the main railway stations, which is pretty ludicrous.

markpb

liam24 wrote: »

In fact, the spur solves the major problems which MN solves, namely a link to the airport and Swords. Ballymun could easily be serviced by Luas in the future.

You're assuming that serving the airport from the city centre is the main aim of Metro North. Linking the suburbs to the city centre is an aim. Living the northern suburbs (including Swords) to the airport is an aim. Connecting all those places to the red and green luas lines is an aim. If DU is built, connecting them to the dart is also an aim. Why do people think that metro north is nothing more than Aircoach on rails?

Zubeneschamali

markpb wrote: »

Why do people think that metro north is nothing more than Aircoach on rails?

Metro North is nothing more than ink on paper.

That's all it's ever going to be.

Grandeeod

liam24 wrote: »

I think his point is that DU plus a spur solves far more problems than MN, so it seems ridiculous to build the latter first. In fact, the spur solves the major problems which MN solves, namely a link to the airport and Swords. Ballymun could easily be serviced by Luas in the future.

It also solves major problems which exist with MN alone, namely that the airport is not linked to either of the main railway stations, which is pretty ludicrous.

If I may and it pains me to say it but....

With MN and DU in place, Dublin Airport is easily linked to main railway stations. After many many years of BS, the original T21 plan for Dublin solved three major problems.

1. It provided a link to Dublin Airport AND served a busy corridor for commuters.

2. It released capacity on the DART network and opened up new rail commuting options.

3. Both DU and MN were integrated allowing changeability and flexibility like the city of Dublin has never seen before.

Like I have said before, if both were operating now we would be arguing the toss about extensions to both while Dublin was up there with any modern European city looking ahead.

No matter what way we look at this, MN and DU would have been simply fantastic for Dublin and its ability to start addressing its car dependence.