Cullen announces Metro North route

strassenwolf

Slice wrote:

If there's talk of building an underground walkway to Abbey Street for connection with Luas Red line then surely it could be done to Tara as well? Again, the difference in distance isn't that great...

The RPA's "scoping report" states that the stop at O'Connell Bridge will be "close" to the LUAS red line stop at Abbey Street. They don't seem to specifically mention an underground walkway, though it would surely make sense. Apparently the river is about 40-50 metres wide at O'Connell Bridge, so if the platforms are about 90-100 metres long, this means that they might extend by about 20-30 metres either side of the river. This of course depends on the exact location of the platforms. Escalators would remove another few metres off the gap between the metro station and the LUAS stop, but it looks like they may have to build some kind of walkway under O'Connell Street if the two stops are to be considered "integrated".

spacetweek

tomflynn wrote:

€10m-€15m won't built anything at Parnell Square. Its costing €60m to build Docklands station at Spencer Dock and thats above ground.

Presume that's a typo...

Slice

I can't help but feel that the Metro has not been properly costed given that so many details remain uncertain and perhaps that's the reason why Martin Cullen is so reluctant to give exact figures for it's price tag.

Victor

spacetweek wrote:

Presume that's a typo...

Yes and no. Such is the fudging of the issue, no clarity exists, but I believe that figure applies to Spencer Dock (in its non-under-river incarnation), not Docklands.

strassenwolf

Victor wrote:

Yes and no. Such is the fudging of the issue, no clarity exists, but I believe that figure applies to Spencer Dock (in its non-under-river incarnation), not Docklands.

Is there a question of Spencer Dock station being built under the river? I'd always understood it would be built within the complex, so that there would be a very good connection with the LUAS extension.

If it's built under the river it'll be quite a distance from the proposed LUAS stop. Not much better than the connection between the docklands station which is being built now and the proposed LUAS stop. If better at all.

Building it wholly within the Spencer Dock complex would surely make more sense.

No?

Victor

strassenwolf wrote:

Building it wholly within the Spencer Dock complex would surely make more sense.

Sure, but there would be the slight problem of finding a level section for the platforms on a steeply sloping section of track.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

Sure, but there would be the slight problem of finding a level section for the platforms on a steeply sloping section of track.

Track enters cutting somewhere north of the actual station, attains the required depth to pass under the river and levels out. Underground station under Spencer Dock site north of river. No sloping platforms required.

Or am I missing something?

Dermot

strassenwolf

Victor wrote:

Sure, but there would be the slight problem of finding a level section for the platforms on a steeply sloping section of track.

Oh, I get it now.

But presumably that issue would have arisen before the RPA fought tooth and nail not to have the LUAS extension built along the quay. It's not like they only thought about building the underground station in the last couple of weeks.

mackerski wrote:

Track enters cutting somewhere north of the actual station, attains the required depth to pass under the river and levels out. Underground station under Spencer Dock site north of river. No sloping platforms required.

Or am I missing something?

If they're planning to build the station under the river, it looks like they can't achieve the required depth. I dunno. I think there was talk about 12 carriage trains travelling through the tunnel. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Victor

mackerski wrote:

Track enters cutting somewhere north of the actual station, attains the required depth to pass under the river and levels out. Underground station under Spencer Dock site north of river. No sloping platforms required.

The problem is getting from the height of the embankment (towards Fairview) to under the river, which is quite steep. Southside isn't a problem.

strassenwolf

Victor wrote:

The problem is getting from the height of the embankment (towards Fairview) to under the river, which is quite steep. Southside isn't a problem.

So what's involved? The track north of the Docklands station being built is, give or take, a metre or two above the level of the water in the canal and the river. The EIS for the metro says that the metro tunnel will be around about 20 metres below ground level on average. Is that also the case with this tunnel? If it is, can a drop of 15-20 metres be achieved in such a short distance? I suppose the depth of the river also has to be taken into account here.

By the way, Victor, if they are planning to use 12 carriage trains, you may want to make your station a bit bigger. The river is about 120 metres wide at the location where you've put your station.:)

murphaph

The Spencer Dock station platforms will be very long (IE have stated 12 car lengths), at least 200m or so we've been told. It should be no problem putting it under the river yet still emerging escalators at Mayor Square to inteconnect with Luas.

spacetweek

Victor wrote:

Yes and no. Such is the fudging of the issue, no clarity exists, but I believe that figure applies to Spencer Dock (in its non-under-river incarnation), not Docklands.

Yea, that's what I thought they meant. The temporary surface station.

They're spending 60 million on a temporary station?? Seems like a horrible waste of money?

strassenwolf

murphaph wrote:

The Spencer Dock station platforms will be very long (IE have stated 12 car lengths), at least 200m or so we've been told. It should be no problem putting it under the river yet still emerging escalators at Mayor Square to inteconnect with Luas.

I hope you're correct, as it's important that there should be a good connection. I can see that it might not have been possible to have a great connection between the LUAS and metro at O'Connell Bridge/Abbey Street, as it's been a built up area for many years and there probably wasn't a whole lot of room for manoeuvre. It'd be less easy to understand if a proper connection had not been planned at Spencer Dock, which, you would think, should have been a blank canvas for the planners.

I don't know what the maths involved in getting trains down from the embankment to under the river actually is. Though I can grasp that if the station is to have a good connection with the LUAS, and if the station is to be able to handle 12 carriage trains, then that takes out a rather large section of land which could be used for building in an incline. If you get my drift. Perhaps someone knows the kind of maths involved.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind a bit of an 'oul slope in the station if it meant a better connection with the LUAS.:D

gobdaw

strassenwolf wrote:

I don't know what the maths involved in getting trains down from the embankment to under the river actually is. Though I can grasp that if the station is to have a good connection with the LUAS, and if the station is to be able to handle 12 carriage trains, then that takes out a rather large section of land which could be used for building in an incline. If you get my drift. Perhaps someone knows the kind of maths involved.

Surely the incline to the interconnector tunnel would not start north of the junction of north embankment/Drumcondra/Midland and possibly even further south at the junction giving access to Alexandria basin.

Is there suggestions that existing trackwork north of these junctions are to be regraded?

Victor

strassenwolf wrote:

Anyway, I wouldn't mind a bit of an 'oul slope in the station if it meant a better connection with the LUAS.:D

The Railway Safety Commission don't want any new stations built with slopes, although this one, being the bottom of the dip, is possibly the safest place to have a sloping platform.

From an energy efficiency point of view, it is the worst place to have a stop.

gobdaw wrote:

Surely the incline to the interconnector tunnel would not start north of the junction of north embankment/Drumcondra/Midland and possibly even further south at the junction giving access to Alexandria basin.

I'm not sure.

Is there suggestions that existing trackwork north of these junctions are to be regraded?

Given bridge clearances, etc. I'm not sure if they could, even if they wanted to.

popebenny16

I just wanted to clear something up here, as i aint been looking at his here thread in weeks but i never advocated the closure of Tara Street Station, I simply said it'll lose a lot of its patronage, which is logical. I also said who would build a temporary shopping centre under the city? But you know, these points can be easily lost.

strassenwolf

popebenny16 wrote:

I just wanted to clear something up here, as i aint been looking at his here thread in weeks but i never advocated the closure of Tara Street Station, I simply said it'll lose a lot of its patronage, which is logical. I also said who would build a temporary shopping centre under the city? But you know, these points can be easily lost.

Your points weren't lost, they just weren't agreed with:D

If I'm not mistaken, the plan is that there'll be about eight electrified trains running between Bray and Maynooth/Pace per hour in each direction. I'm not sure precisely how many arrow trains will be running per hour between Longford/Navan? and Dublin and between Drogheda/Dundalk/Navan? and Dublin. It might be perhaps four. I suppose it's possible that some of these could terminate at Connolly, though it would be nice to have them run at least as far as Pearse, especially if the capacity on the loop line bridge will at that stage be 16 trains per hour.

Add in perhaps 1-2 Gorey/Arklow trains and we should certainly be looking at 12 trains per hour in each direction through Tara Street.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is the plan as things currently stand. Unless some other plan emerges, that is the plan for the foreseeable future, so any underground shopping mall will be there for good.

I think you're certainly correct to say that Tara Street will lose some of its patronage, but I suspect what will happen is that it will lose some of it's current patronage.

Most people who use the DART/Arrow as part of a journey to, say, Christchurch, would probably have Tara Street as their current choice. You'd imagine they'd change at Pearse under the new regime. I'm not sure what the current situation would be with someone trying to get to Stephen's Green or its environs. Pearse might be currently a marginally better station, though I'd probably "feel" nearer at Tara Street and would normally use that one. That would certainly change if the interconnector option was there.

So some of the current patronage would move from Tara Street to Pearse. On the other hand, it is expected that the whole plan would bring about a considerable increase in the number of people using the train. I take it that the Maynooth line will become much more attractive if there's a train every 10minutes or so, and ditto for locations like Longford, Drogheda and Gorey if there is also an improved service.

Given the centrality of its location, the fact that we should have about the same number of trains passing through Tara Street as we currently do, and the fact that more people generally will think it feasible to use the train, I'd be surprised if the numbers using the station would actually drop below what they are now. If I had the money, I'd jump at the chance to build that underground mall:D

On the other issue being dealt with here, that of the location of the Spencer Dock underground station and its integration with the LUAS, do Platform 11 have any views?

popebenny16

Our position is that they must integrate. When we see the exact location of the proposed underground station we can make a clear and concise comment on it.

The current station under construction will not integrate with LUAS which is appaling, but its a done deal. With the underground station it can be influcenced in design and functionality matters when the planning and consultation process kicks in.

When you post things like this:

We certainly do very much need Tara Street, even after construction of the interconnector.

It looks like you think I advocated closing Tara Street so this

Your points weren't lost, they just weren't agreed with

is misleading, you cant disagree with something I never said. Esp when you also said this

Interconnector or not, I can't imagine how a journey from Drogheda or Dun Laoghaire to, say, the Irish Life centre or Temple Bar could possibly be improved by removing Tara Street station.

.

I still think that Tara is used for the reason that it is the current most central station but it will lose that post interconnecter. There will be more choices to go other places without having to go through Tara. And lets say they were, theres as mucha chance that they'll avoid the tunnell to O'Connell Street as use it.

If I was going to have a big underground shopping mall, i'd stick it at Stephens Green, and I dont think there'll be enough money for two. Dosnt matter, it's not my money, I'm sure if there is a huge market there someone will come up with the proposal.

If I'm not mistaken, the plan is that there'll be about eight electrified trains running between Bray and Maynooth/Pace per hour in each direction. I'm not sure precisely how many arrow trains will be running per hour between Longford/Navan? and Dublin and between Drogheda/Dundalk/Navan? and Dublin. It might be perhaps four. I suppose it's possible that some of these could terminate at Connolly, though it would be nice to have them run at least as far as Pearse, especially if the capacity on the loop line bridge will at that stage be 16 trains per hour.

Add in perhaps 1-2 Gorey/Arklow trains and we should certainly be looking at 12 trains per hour in each direction through Tara Street.

But with a lot of them getting off at Pearse and interconnecting there and doing the same at Docklands it leaves a lot less people going to Tara Street.

Either way, I'm praying for the day it gets finished, what a city we'll have then.

strassenwolf

popebenny16 wrote:

Our position is that they must integrate. When we see the exact location of the proposed underground station we can make a clear and concise comment on it.

That's a sensible position to take. It's just a little surprising that no word appears to have "emerged", shall we say, about the likely location of the proposed underground station. I understand the route has been in the planning phase for some time now.

popebenny16 wrote:

The current station under construction will not integrate with LUAS which is appaling, but its a done deal. With the underground station it can be influcenced in design and functionality matters when the planning and consultation process kicks in.

The question here is not really the design of the station. The question is can the station be built at a location where there will be excellent integration with the LUAS? In other words, pretty much one station on top of the other.

popebenny16 wrote:

It looks like you think I advocated closing Tara Street so this is misleading, you cant disagree with something I never said.

No, I don't think you did advocate closing Tara Street. However, you gave the distinct impression that you expect Tara Street to wither on the vine:

popebenny16 wrote:

Just in relation to the walkway from O'connell street to Tara Street, ok it will be in effect temporary, and it will be expensive. Then again, Spencer Dock station is temporary and expensive.

If it was to be in effect temporary why would any shops locate there? Who would build a temporary underground shopping centre?

and

popebenny16 wrote:

I personally am not aginst this tunnell from the bridge to Tara Street station, the only problem is that as well as the "termporary" aspect to it, there is the entire ambiance and indeed capacity issues for Tara street. In fact, with the interconnector will we need Tara Street at all?

As the closest station for many passengers to Ireland's main street, and with as many trains passing through it as do so now, I don't expect it to suffer too much. But we shall see.

popebenny16 wrote:

Either way, I'm praying for the day it gets finished, what a city we'll have then.

Indeed.:)

casey jones

I thought I heard Barry Kenny saying Docklands staion to be complete March 2008. Is that right ?

casey jones

Sorry I meant March 2007

Victor

Something like that, yes.

strassenwolf

Is there any word filtering out about the connection between the metro stop at O'Connell Bridge and the LUAS stop at Abbey Street?

DerekP11

strassenwolf wrote:

Is there any word filtering out about the connection between the metro stop at O'Connell Bridge and the LUAS stop at Abbey Street?

I think its been discussed before, but in the interests of information, here's the story.

The O'Connell bridge stop will have multiple access points, one of them will be located on O'Connell street at the junction with Abbey street. Whether its in the central island or "closer" to the Luas Abbey street stop is open to debate. But I reckon its gonna be closer to the "island" so it can serve the Luas extension to Liffey Junction. (ultimately part of linking green and red Luas lines, but without any form of through running on the Luas lines)

strassenwolf

Thanks for that.

Here's a bit more about the metro. It will probably increase the cost a bit, but it sounds sensible.

Today's Irish Times wrote:

RPA to rethink Ballymun section of Metro North
Tim O'Brien

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) is to re-examine its preferred options for routing Dublin's Metro North through Ballymun.

The 17km (10.6-mile) metro is set to take passengers underground from St Stephen's Green to Dublin City University (DCU) where it will rise to street level, and pass along the central median on Ballymun Road and Ballymun Main Street.

When the route was announced last month, the RPA said it was considering three options for the Ballymun section. These included an on-street design, an elevated design and putting the line in a trench along the middle of the road.

However, following opposition from locals, The Irish Times understands the RPA has agreed to consider scrapping all three options to continue the metro underground until it has passed Ballymun and possibly the M50.

Labour transport spokeswoman Róisín Shortall revealed senior RPA executives met with local councillors, TDs and executives of Ballymun regeneration this week to work out a solution.

Ms Shortall said there were serious difficulties with all of the original RPA options. In relation to the on-street design, the route would traverse three major intersections in the area of Main Street. " . . . And you cannot have a high-speed train crossing three junctions at the lights," she said.

In relation to the elevated proposal, Ms Shortall said it was impractical to put the train "looking in the first-floor windows of homes" while issues would arise in relation to the space under the line which could give rise to anti-social behaviour.

In relation to the trench proposal, she said there were safety issues for pedestrians and trains. The RPA is to revert to the groups on Tuesday with further proposals.

According to Ms Shortall, a solution which does not involve any of the original three put forward by the RPA is a must if the project is to be successful. "You simply can't spend €3 billion on a high-speed train and then ruin its effectiveness by asking it to stop three times in a short section for junctions with road traffic."

Similarly, she said, it was not realistic to expect people in Ballymun to put up with an elevated or trench section when it could be put underground elsewhere along the route. Metro North is expected to complete its journey from St Stephen's Green to Dublin airport in 17 minutes, arriving at Swords in 26 minutes.

bk

Maybe a cut and cover trench along the existing alignment like lots of London underground whould solve the problem in Ballymun, while still being relatively cheap.

gobdaw

bk wrote:

Maybe a cut and cover trench along the existing alignment like lots of London underground whould solve the problem in Ballymun, while still being relatively cheap.

The M50, with it's huge embankment, is the elephant in the corner. Cut n cover accross the M50, with carriageways closed, would create mayhem with Dublin traffic.

The only realistic options would be either stilts or tunnel. My preference would be tunnel, stilts would have metro like a switch-back, up from the tunnel at DCU, stilts at Ballymun centre, over the M50, down to grade then underground for the airport terminal.

Give them the extra for a tunnel, I say!

Victor

gobdaw wrote:

The M50, with it's huge embankment, is the elephant in the corner. Cut n cover accross the M50, with carriageways closed, would create mayhem with Dublin traffic.

Why do you say this? If cut and cover can be used with little disruption on the Jubilee Line in the middle of London, why not on Metro at the M50?

mackerski

Victor wrote:

Why do you say this? If cut and cover can be used with little disruption on the Jubilee Line in the middle of London, why not on Metro at the M50?

Where in the middle of London was the Jubilee built this way? Not on the stretch built in the 70s anyway, and if it was used at all on the more recent extension I'm guessing it must have been well into the Docklands.

Dermot

murphaph

They could use pipe jacking to get under the M50 embankment. That's how they got the cut and cover section of the DPT under the railway at Fairview.