Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

What?

He wants people to stop arguing so he can feel some sort of moral victory

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

He wants people to stop arguing so he can feel some sort of moral victory

I hope that is not the case.

This thread has been largely about a proposed upgrade to a rail line on the southside. That upgrade, as currently proposed, wouldn't deliver rail transport to any new areas of the southside but would involve a large, and increasing, amount of money, and we have to see if it makes sense in the proposed timeframe.

It merits discussion.

strassenwo!f

I understand from this, or perhaps the other metrolink thread, that there are overseas consultants involved in this. This is very welcome, as they will presumably bring outside expertise ino Ireland.

I'd be keen to know the name of the consultants who took the overall picture of Dublin, and decided that it would be best for Dublin to go with a plan to upgrade the current LUAS.

And I'd be keen to know the name of the consultants who are going to be involved in the nitty-gritty of the actual work between Swords and the southside.

Zipppy

strassenwo!f wrote:

But it also shouldn't be a problem to sell a new apartment to somebody near to the Green LUAS line in Sandyford or Cherrywood, built on new land, with a direct journey time of less than 40 minutes into the city centre. Upgrading that line to a metro, under the current metrolink.ie proposal, would cut perhaps 2-3 minutes off the journey to/from the city centre - effectively nothing.

The issue with luas is that service capacity is limited.
The goal is to build extensive residential developments out towards the end of the luas green line.
Luas green is already way over capacity..thousands more passengers cannot be accommodated. More frequent or longer trams cannot be run cross city..imagine college green with a tram every minute..
So the only option is bigger more frequent underground trains..

Podge_irl

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've thought about this particular post for a number of days, and I've finally got a chance to reply to it.

We know there are tram systems operating, in city centres in Europe, where they're running 30+ trams per hour per direction, with several road interactions. The fact that several tram lines merge somewhere along or around there is irrelevant: the key thing is that along those merged city centre sections, 30+ tphpd are being done.

It's not irrelevant because having trams 2min apart along 19km is harder and more prone to problems than doing it over 1km. Because 19>1, a rather elementary fact I wouldn't have thought needed to be pointed out.

You also keep ignoring the fact that the trams are longer.

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I understand from this, or perhaps the other metrolink thread, that there are overseas consultants involved in this. This is very welcome, as they will presumably bring outside expertise ino Ireland.

I'd be keen to know the name of the consultants who took the overall picture of Dublin, and decided that it would be best for Dublin to go with a plan to upgrade the current LUAS.

And I'd be keen to know the name of the consultants who are going to be involved in the nitty-gritty of the actual work between Swords and the southside.

You should look it up so.

The simple reason why this approach is taken is that these decisions are made on economic criteria they are not based on equality and fairness criteria (which is the type of stupid decision making process which gave us a train line between Galway and Limerick). There is a place for equality and fairness but it is not in metro route design.

A metro in a short city tunnel with two long above-ground stretches on either end will always beat any other possible configuration when you evaluate the CBA for various route options.

The reasons are obvious when you think about it. You don’t need underground turnarounds. You don’t need a city centre insertion/extraction. A small length of expensive tunnel directly benefits a very large catchment.

The green luas needs to be upgraded anyway. There is going to be disruption on that line no matter what you do. The line was always designed with this upgrade in mind.

There is no alternative route in Dublin I can see which will give anything like the same return on investment as this proposal.

Kermit.de.frog

So what's the best guess time frame for delivery of this scheme? 30 years?

tom1ie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what's the best guess time frame for delivery of this scheme? 30 years?

Oh be careful asking that question on here, certain people get pissed off ya didn’t read the pages and pages on this thread and the documentation on metrolink...............(ducks and takes cover :pac:)

marno21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what's the best guess time frame for delivery of this scheme? 30 years?

2022 start 2028 open would be my best estimate at present.

Kermit.de.frog

Ok thanks. So 30 years then...we'll say 30 years.

:pac:

tom1ie

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ok thanks. So 30 years then...we'll say 30 years.

:pac:

I think it stands about as much chance of getting built to the standard that we all hope and want as bus connects getting all radial spine routes built with continuous qbc’s.
In other words 30 years is probably hopeful.
In saying that it is Sunday night and I’m feeling quite cynical.

Qrt

tom1ie wrote: »

I think it stands about as much chance of getting built to the standard that we all hope and want as bus connects getting all radial spine routes built with continuous qbc’s.
In other words 30 years is probably hopeful.
In saying that it is Sunday night and I’m feeling quite cynical.

I feel at this stage, the gov know it’s too critical, especially when MANY companies looked at relocating here after Brexit, and equally as many said “f*** that” when they tried to figure out how their staff would get to work...

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The simple reason why this approach is taken is that these decisions are made on economic criteria they are not based on equality and fairness criteria (which is the type of stupid decision making process which gave us a train line between Galway and Limerick). There is a place for equality and fairness but it is not in metro route design.

There is surely no place on this thread for a comparison with the daftness seen with the WRC. The southside suburbs which I am suggesting should be included in this metro project have a population density which is about the same as those suburbs along most of the southside part of the Green line, and a similar density to that of suburbs in other European cities which do already have a metro service.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

A metro in a short city tunnel with two long above-ground stretches on either end will always beat any other possible configuration when you evaluate the CBA for various route options.

The reasons are obvious when you think about it. You don’t need underground turnarounds. You don’t need a city centre insertion/extraction. A small length of expensive tunnel directly benefits a very large catchment.

Tunnelling towards the south-central/west of the city would also do that.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The green luas needs to be upgraded anyway. There is going to be disruption on that line no matter what you do. The line was always designed with this upgrade in mind.

A short LUAS line between Baggot Street Bridge and Peter Place, as I have suggested on this thread, and some traffic measures at Dunville Avenue, would seem to sort that out for the next 25 years or so.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is no alternative route in Dublin I can see which will give anything like the same return on investment as this proposal.

You suggested above that the tunnel might be built to Beechwood, and then head to southwest of the city. Given that there are going to be 60 metre metro vehicles, with a capacity of say 450 per vehicle (based on the metrolink figures of 400 passengers per 55m tram), you'd need almost 29 vehicles just to deal with the projected demand of 13,000 along the current Green line in 2057.

Given that maximum throughput currently being done on underground systems is around 36 vehicles per hour, that doesn't leave a huge amount of scope for a proper service for whatever suburbs you envisage would be served by your proposal of a tunnel towards the southwest.

antoinolachtnai

Metrolink is going to operate with narrow trams?! Where did you hear that?

Metrolink will only be able to take a 60m train? Where did you hear that?

What is this rapid corridor in Rathmines that your version of Metrolink will connect to as an alternative to the green line? The rathgar road bus lane?

Why would anybody take your tram spur down to Baggot St? It would be faster to walk than to wait for it.

You still haven’t explained how you are going to magically solve your problem on Dunville Avenue. Perhaps you would just close off the road permanently and put a pedestrian bridge. Might be the safest thing.

You are going to solve your problem in Stillorgan by digging a giant hole in a main road leading to the M50 so I suppose it makes sense.

Sure, the south west has density. But it would cost a few hundred million per km to build that metro. It will cost a few million per km to upgrade the Green line. It will deliver a lot more per euro spent.

The WRC flame seems to be alive and well. Your only argument for not running the Metro to sandyford is that the Luas already runs there. But that’s some sort of social or political or emotional argument. It doesn’t hold any economic water.

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You suggested above that the tunnel might be built to Beechwood, and then head to southwest of the city. Given that there are going to be 60 metre metro vehicles, with a capacity of say 450 per vehicle (based on the metrolink figures of 400 passengers per 55m tram), you'd need almost 29 vehicles just to deal with the projected demand of 13,000 along the current Green line in 2057.

Given that maximum throughput currently being done on underground systems is around 36 vehicles per hour, that doesn't leave a huge amount of scope for a proper service for whatever suburbs you envisage would be served by your proposal of a tunnel towards the southwest.

What nonsense are you blathering on about now!! The above is so factually incorrect it isn't even funny. How could anyone take you serious when you say stuff like the above.

60 meter metros will have FAR more capacity per vehicle then trams for the following reasons:
- They are wider, 2.6m wide versus 2.4m for Luas.
- Longer
- High floor vehicles mean more standing space due to the wheels no intruding into the space.
- If they go driverless then more space again for passengers (no drivers cab).

Also the max planned frequency is 40 TPHPD

That will be 18,000 PPDPH, or over double the maximum capacity of the Luas.

They are also building the stations to support 90 meter trains in future if needed for future growth. That would allow for a future capacity of 27,000 PPDPH

And finally if they end up going with the Monotube tunnelling option, then going even longer with trains in the distant future is relatively straight forward.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

What nonsense are you blathering on about now!! The above is so factually incorrect it isn't even funny. How could anyone take you serious when you say stuff like the above.

60 meter metros will have FAR more capacity per vehicle then trams for the following reasons:
- They are wider, 2.6m wide versus 2.4m for Luas.
- Longer
- High floor vehicles mean more standing space due to the wheels no intruding into the space.
- If they go driverless then more space again for passengers (no drivers cab).

Also the max planned frequency is 40 TPHPD

That will be 18,000 PPDPH, or over double the maximum capacity of the Luas.

They are also building the stations to support 90 meter trains in future if needed for future growth. That would allow for a future capacity of 27,000 PPDPH

And finally if they end up going with the Monotube tunnelling option, then going even longer with trains in the distant future is relatively straight forward.

There are two options for monotube - side by side or one above the other. Side by side would imply that the platforms are outside the tunnel. Not sure which they intend to go with - or even if they have decided which yet.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are two options for monotube - side by side or one above the other. Side by side would imply that the platforms are outside the tunnel. Not sure which they intend to go with - or even if they have decided which yet.

Actually they are looking at four options:
- Twin bore
- Single bore, side by side
- Single bore, stacked
- Monotube (stacked).

Note there are then multiple variants within each of the above, different depths.

The monotube option has the platform in the tube, so would be reasonably easy to expand the platforms.

The two single bore options, are what you are thinking of, they have the platform outside the bore. Though, note, they are designing these as 90 meters station boxes from the start.

You are correct, we haven't heard what option they have selected yet.

Though I think the talk might be of using Monotube now, since it reduces the size of the needed station box, which helps with the property/CPO issues and it actually comes out as the second best option after twin bore.

Though non of that really changes the numbers I gave above, 60 meter gives you a 18,000 PPHPD, over twice the max capacity of Luas Green Line and 90m gives you 27,000 PPHPD, over three time Luas. All tunnel options are being designed to at least 90 meter.

D.L.R.

Train/platform length of various systems:

Stockholm T-bana: 140m
Oslo T-banen: 110m
Copenhagen Metro: 60m
Amsterdam Metro: 120-130m
London Underground: up to 135m
London Crossrail: 200m
New York Subway: up to 185m
Porto Metro: 70m
Rome Metro: 110m
Budapest Metro: 80m
Sydney Metro (U/C): 160m
Melbourne Metro (U/C): 160m
Auckland City Rail Link (U/C): 150m
Dublin DART: 180m
Dublin Tram: 45m

Considering this will be Dublin's core N-S route and airport service, 60m is too short and even 90m is a bit on the stingy side tbh.

bk

D.L.R. wrote: »

Copenhagen Metro: 60m
Porto Metro: 70m

These two would be the closest population wise. Copenhagen Metro area 1.7m, Porto Metro 1.9m, most similar to Dublin, so seems quiet inline.

BTW Copenhagen trains are only 39m long.

A lot of those other cities are WAY larger. Though fair enough on Stockholm and Oslo.

BTW London Underground goes from just 66m up to 134m depending on line, with the average lines being 108m and 117m.

You also left out the London DLR at just 56m

And Paris Metro, most lines are 75m, with the two busiest lines at 90m.

I wouldn't say Metrolink at a future 90m wouldn't be at all that much out of place compared to much larger cities like Paris and London and not far off the likes of Rome. Metro systems tend to be shorter, but higher frequency then heavy rail.

Another point to keep in mind, is will they go for just one long train car? A lot of the older systems you list here are made up of multiple shorter cars, which end up wasting space between cars (think like the DART and all the room wasted between cars), while newer systems tend to be continuous * so can take more people in the same length.

* They aren't strictly one car obviously, but multiple cars joined in such a way that space isn't wasted between cars with walls and doors and empty space. Think of Luas with the bendy bits between cars, that allow you walk down the length of a Luas and able to stand between cars, for one not so great Irish example.

BTW some of those you listed, like Crossrail, are more heavy rail systems like DART, rather then Metro and don't have such great frequency, which impacts capacity over an hour. Think DART despite being so long, can only carry slightly more people per hour then Luas with much shorter trams.

BBTW Luas is up to 54m

bk

DART at a frequency of 10 minutes with all 8 carriage trains (which doesn't seem to be reality) is just 8,400 PPHPD

Luas Green Line once all trains at 54m x 24 TPHPD is 8760 PPHPD

So much the same as one another overall.

60 Metrolink will be 18,000 PPHPD and 90m would be about 27,000 PPHPD to give you an idea on how they all compare, not bad at all, IMO.

celtcia

bk wrote: »

DART at a frequency of 10 minutes with all 8 carriage trains (which doesn't seem to be reality) is just 8,400 PPHPD

Luas Green Line once all trains at 54m x 24 TPHPD is 8760 PPHPD

So much the same as one another overall.

60 Metrolink will be 18,000 PPHPD and 90m would be about 27,000 PPHPD to give you an idea on how they all compare, not bad at all, IMO.

Ride quality and level of comfort on light rail tram is generally poor quality...

Heavy rail can easily do 40,000 and blow it out of the water with superior level of comfort.

Also return is better per Km of tunnel.
Dublin unlikely to get 2 lines in 10 years.

Qrt

celtcia wrote: »

Ride quality and level of comfort on light rail tram is generally poor quality...

Heavy rail can easily do 40,000 and blow it out of the water with superior level of comfort.

Also return is better per Km of tunnel.
Dublin unlikely to get 2 lines in 10 years.

I don't think Dubs will be throwing stuff out of the tram when it comes to comfort considering the Bus is the only option for most of the population.

bk

celtcia wrote: »

Ride quality and level of comfort on light rail tram is generally poor quality...

Heavy rail can easily do 40,000 and blow it out of the water with superior level of comfort.

Also return is better per Km of tunnel.
Dublin unlikely to get 2 lines in 10 years.

Luas is the most highly rated form of public transport in Ireland with a public satisfaction rating of 98%, Dart was just 84% the lowest in Ireland, even lower then BE!!

I agree it Luas being a tram is less comfortable. But people seem to care more about the reliability and frequency of the service. Heavy rail tends to suffer a lot from reliability issues, due to mixing different types of service like we see with Irish Rail

Metrolink looks like it is going to be speced to a much higher standard then Luas and will be more like a DART then Luas, high floor vehicles, 2.6m wide, similar to DART.

BTW on your 40k comment, that certainly isn't the case in Ireland. DART, with the new 10 minute frequency tops out just over 8,000 per hour, the same as Luas and the total for the line including commuter and intercity is 16k. Metrolink will handily beat those numbers.

Crossrail in London does top out at 36k capacity, which is great, but that is a completely different type of service, a dedicated tunnel and line only operating one type of train and service. It is also costing £16 billion, it is completely unsuited for a small city like ours. We could build 6 metro lines for that money!!!

Could you imagine how Dublin would be transformed if we had 6 Metros, it would be incredible.

I find the whole heavy rail versus Metro conversation a bit silly. If you look around Europe, it is clear what makes the biggest difference is fully segregated services and services all operating to the same type along a route. Keeps complexity down and allows for higher frequency.

Kellyconor1982

bk wrote: »

Luas is the most highly rated form of public transport in Ireland with a public satisfaction rating of 98%, Dart was just 84% the lowest in Ireland, even lower then BE!!

I agree it Luas being a tram is less comfortable. But people seem to care more about the reliability and frequency of the service. Heavy rail tends to suffer a lot from reliability issues, due to mixing different types of service like we see with Irish Rail

Metrolink looks like it is going to be speced to a much higher standard then Luas and will be more like a DART then Luas, high floor vehicles, 2.6m wide, similar to DART.

BTW on your 40k comment, that certainly isn't the case in Ireland. DART, with the new 10 minute frequency tops out just over 8,000 per hour, the same as Luas and the total for the line including commuter and intercity is 16k. Metrolink will handily beat those numbers.

Crossrail in London does top out at 36k capacity, which is great, but that is a completely different type of service, a dedicated tunnel and line only operating one type of train and service. It is also costing £16 billion, it is completely unsuited for a small city like ours. We could build 6 metro lines for that money!!!

Could you imagine how Dublin would be transformed if we had 6 Metros, it would be incredible.

I find the whole heavy rail versus Metro conversation a bit silly. If you look around Europe, it is clear what makes the biggest difference is fully segregated services and services all operating to the same type along a route. Keeps complexity down and allows for higher frequency.

Six metro lines would be a dream wouldn't it. I think for an expanding city our size, 3-4 metro lines would be very adequate and decent.

Timeline for completion might be:
Metro 1:2027
Metro 2: 2034 (metro out from city through rathmines, rathgar, terenure,rathfarnham, knocklyon, firhouse and terminating in tallaght)
Metro 3: 2042 (the original metro west but i would have it starting in dundrum through rathfarnham, knocklyon and on to original metro west route).

Lucan really needs something as well. I know they were looking at luas but i would think with the size of it's population it needs a metro towards the city centre. This could be the 4th metro line.

Kermit.de.frog

D.L.R. wrote: »

Considering this will be Dublin's core N-S route and airport service, 60m is too short and even 90m is a bit on the stingy side tbh.

The disease of building things too small looks set to continue.

Can these platforms be lengthened in the future?

Even if they could, sure, why do things right the first time?

bk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The disease of building things too small looks set to continue.

Can these platforms be lengthened in the future?

Even if they could, sure, why do things right the first time?

Why make silly statements like this when it has been discussed in detail on this thread and they clearly are building it with plenty of capacity and room to grow in future!

The plan looks like they will open at 60m, but will build the platforms to 90m so that it can easily be upgraded in future. 60/90m seem fine, at 60m it puts us inline with similar sized cities (e.g. Copenhagen, Porto, even most lines in Paris!) and 90m would be not far off much larger cities (e.g. the two busiest lines in Paris!).

60m would be over twice the current capacity of DART and 90m would be over three times the capacity of DART. Pretty good IMO.

If they opt for the monotube option, then it would be possible to go beyond 90m without too much difficulty.

bk

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Six metro lines would be a dream wouldn't it. I think for an expanding city our size, 3-4 metro lines would be very adequate and decent.

Timeline for completion might be:
Metro 1:2027
Metro 2: 2034 (metro out from city through rathmines, rathgar, terenure,rathfarnham, knocklyon, firhouse and terminating in tallaght)
Metro 3: 2042 (the original metro west but i would have it starting in dundrum through rathfarnham, knocklyon and on to original metro west route).

Lucan really needs something as well. I know they were looking at luas but i would think with the size of it's population it needs a metro towards the city centre. This could be the 4th metro line.

Yes and DART Underground too. I'd suspect that will come second on your list after Metrolink is built.

If you had DU, I wonder if a Luas from Lucan to Clondalkin Fonthill station and allow people to change onto DART would be any good?

Actually now that I think of it, that would be the Metro West, connecting Lucan to both Fonthill and Consilla on the other line and then onto Blanchardstown, connecting them all too those now electrified DART lines.

Obviously continue it North to Dublin Airport and onto Clongriffin and south to Clondalkin and Tallagth. A real network we would have then.

D.L.R.

I think Dublin needs longer trains than Copenhagen. Copenhagen already had a great S-Train network to integrate into, Dublin doesn't. Our Metro will have more to do.

Kermit.de.frog

bk wrote: »

not far off much larger cities (e.g. the two busiest lines in Paris!).

And this is always the Irish attitude to planning that kills us.

Why should it not be the same size as much larger cities???

Why not future proof completely?

We need to stop this village mentality. Build it big, build it properly. It's very simple.

Kellyconor1982

bk wrote: »

Yes and DART Underground too. I'd suspect that will come second on your list after Metrolink is built.

If you had DU, I wonder if a Luas from Lucan to Clondalkin Fonthill station and allow people to change onto DART would be any good?

Actually now that I think of it, that would be the Metro West, connecting Lucan to both Fonthill and Consilla on the other line and then onto Blanchardstown, connecting them all too those now electrified DART lines.

Obviously continue it North to Dublin Airport and onto Clongriffin and south to Clondalkin and Tallagth. A real network we would have then.

It would be great. I agree the DU could be before any M2 line and lengthen out the timescale. Once i saw progression in the city happening at a good steady rate with proper goals i wouldn't mind.

As much as i don't really like Leo, the last thing i want is an election right now with eedjit politicians trying to score votes and jeopardise the metrolink or delay it. I do feel once this is built, it will bring about a real desire for more metro lines and/or a DU.