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

tom1ie

VeryOwl wrote: »

Indeed. What was the whole point of the so-called transport study review to make it cheaper?

"Metro North" was "unaffordable" but Revised Metro North/New Metro North/Link North with more underground running than the "unaffordable" metro and extra underground stations is going to be done for less? Now we'll hear the 90 metre trains are back and we will quite literally be back at square zero for no reason at all.

So is it going to be 90m or 60m metros?

Grandeeod

BowSideChamp wrote: »

Where will the the metro enter the tunnel at Charlemount?

Nobody knows yet, hence the media sh1te. As usual the Government announce all the stuff without any decent specs to back it up. Populism. Which is why I will continue to say they are spoofers.

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

So is it going to be 90m or 60m metros?

Or perhaps 30M trains running as 30 or 60 or 90 sets.

I doubt it would be built except as driverless. Just look at how the London Docklands Light Railway is going from success to success.

tom1ie

BowSideChamp wrote: »

Where will the the metro enter the tunnel at Charlemount?

Not sure but does anyone know the potential sites? There can't be too much open space there.

Grandeeod

VeryOwl wrote: »

Indeed. What was the whole point of the so-called transport study review to make it cheaper?

"Metro North" was "unaffordable" but Revised Metro North/New Metro North/Link North with more underground running than the "unaffordable" metro and extra underground stations is going to be done for less? Now we'll hear the 90 metre trains are back and we will quite literally be back at square zero for no reason at all.

Expect a very long drawn out planning process followed by a very long drawn out public consultation process. All the previous stuff has been tossed back into the mix. It's impossible to take it seriously.

donvito99

The old Irish Nationwide site has always been thought as the ideal area to tie in to the Green Line.

But it is to be developed as I understand.

D.L.R.

VeryOwl wrote: »

Indeed. What was the whole point of the so-called transport study review to make it cheaper?

Indeed, but worth remembering that was a different govt to the present.

Anyway, we wouldn't have got the redesign without that process so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Grandeeod

CarlosHarpic wrote: »

Every since his fetish for the colonial monument on STG became his number one infrastructure priority, I have suspected that McDonald is completely insane. He reminds of the officer in The Bridge Over the River Kwai who ends up proud to serve the enemy.

Frank McDonald is an outdated eejit. Since I became interested in PT, he has sounded like an eejit. When I engaged with him donkeys years ago, he was an eejit. Another hack and so called "expert" that people who knew nothing about PT trusted. There are posters on boards and people in the real world that know more about PT than Frank McDonald.

Remember P11? We need more of that. A period of 4 years where they dined at the top table and goons like this had respect.

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

I think its more a case of FG realising (finally) that serious money has to be spent on infrastructure.

It looks similar in cost to original Metro North but much more efficient and therefore better VALUE. Tiger era govts had a habit of throwing money around but not very wisely.

If FF got their finger out 10 years ago and actually built Metro North then great, I'd have taken that. But they didn't, and here we are.

With respect, I do not agree with that. I was involved in PT planning many moons ago and all FG want to do is the complete opposite of what FF want to do. This new Metro thing is a complete fudge. They have thrown all the original aspects back into the mix . Aspects that had to be ditched years ago on cost grounds.

tom1ie

Grandeeod wrote: »

With respect, I do not agree with that. I was involved in PT planning many moons ago and all FG want to do is the complete opposite of what FF want to do. This new Metro thing is a complete fudge. They have thrown all the original aspects back into the mix . Aspects that had to be ditched years ago on cost grounds.

So what are you saying? That all this is just a political stunt that will secure them a majority in the next general election and then when brexit hits home they'll have a great excuse to ditch it again? Surely not...........

MJohnston

Grandeeod wrote: »

Frank McDonald is an outdated eejit. Since I became interested in PT, he has sounded like an eejit. When I engaged with him donkeys years ago, he was an eejit. Another hack and so called "expert" that people who knew nothing about PT trusted. There are posters on boards and people in the real world that know more about PT than Frank McDonald.

Remember P11? We need more of that. A period of 4 years where they dined at the top table and goons like this had respect.

I tweeted at McDonald once, a pretty congenial, inquisitive tweet that just happened to question one of his own statements about some property development. The response was Angry Old Man Yells At Cloud encapsulated.

He's the George Hook of development analysis - angry, outdated views, yet continues to get a voice because of his pals.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we cut the talk of people not on here to defend themselves.

Van.Bosch

One element of this that gives me confidence it might happen is the route map and the name. Ignoring the actual alignment the map shows a route from Swords to Sandyford so it covers both sides of the city, the name north is gone so it is an easier sell politically, I’d say 70% if the cost is the original metro idea but the new larger scale plan appeals to more.

Does anyone think any of the Luas extensions will be in place before metro?

Grandeeod

tom1ie wrote: »

So what are you saying? That all this is just a political stunt that will secure them a majority in the next general election and then when brexit hits home they'll have a great excuse to ditch it again? Surely not...........

I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but its almost impossible to explain the histrionics and politics going on here in a single post. This entire thread needs to be read from the start if you want to get a handle on things.

This Metro may be built, but I, like many others doubt it and with justifiable reasons. I never ever say this lightly and I'm not trolling in any way. I would be happily proved wrong. However what is leaking now rings alarm bells. Its going backwards.

Sam Russell

Van.Bosch wrote: »

One element of this that gives me confidence it might happen is the route map and the name. Ignoring the actual alignment the map shows a route from Swords to Sandyford so it covers both sides of the city, the name north is gone so it is an easier sell politically, I’d say 70% if the cost is the original metro idea but the new larger scale plan appeals to more.

Keeping it mostly underground removes the objections from surface running through Ballymun, so that is good.

[Aside] Reports on the news that ESRI say they should put 10c on the litre of diesel which would cut CO2 and Nox and raise €500 m/year. Now 10 years of that would pay for Metrolink and DU.

LionelNashe

Does anyone know where exactly the Mater stop would be? (Serious question)
Could FG get away with proposing Leo Street? (Not a serious question)

D.L.R.

Grandeeod wrote: »

With respect, I do not agree with that. I was involved in PT planning many moons ago and all FG want to do is the complete opposite of what FF want to do. This new Metro thing is a complete fudge. They have thrown all the original aspects back into the mix . Aspects that had to be ditched years ago on cost grounds.

I share your cynicism believe me. But FF and FG aren't that different.

Metro North is politically dead. I just want SOMETHING to be built, you get me? I feel this is now the only show in town and I just hope we get some detailed maps soon. I'm cautiously optimistic.

MJohnston

LionelNashe wrote: »

Does anyone know where exactly the Mater stop would be? (Serious question)
Could FG get away with proposing Leo Street? (Not a serious question)

Someone mentioned there was a pre-built station box at Mater specifically for the Metro, so if you can find details of the plans of that, you might have your answer. But, it's almost certainly incorporated into the actual hospital site.

tom1ie

Grandeeod wrote: »

I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but its almost impossible to explain the histrionics and politics going on here in a single post. This entire thread needs to be read from the start if you want to get a handle on things.

This Metro may be built, but I, like many others doubt it and with justifiable reasons. I never ever say this lightly and I'm not trolling in any way. I would be happily proved wrong. However what is leaking now rings alarm bells. Its going backwards.

I'm enthusiastic with a generous helping of pessimism!! Wouldn't be surprised if we were fooked over by these politicians again.

ted1

LionelNashe wrote: »

Does anyone know where exactly the Mater stop would be? (Serious question)
Could FG get away with proposing Leo Street? (Not a serious question)

In the mater, I believe the station was more or less built

https://m.herald.ie/news/mater-gets-metro-stop-for-line-thats-been-axed-27995726.html

ted1

Some details here
http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/archaeology/Metro North/Mater Stop Box Part 1

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

Someone mentioned there was a pre-built station box at Mater specifically for the Metro, so if you can find details of the plans of that, you might have your answer. But, it's almost certainly incorporated into the actual hospital site.

To follow up on this, here's a link about the station box, shows a few photos of (presumably) the construction of it, which would place it somewhere on the car park side of the hospital I think...which is actually very close to Leo Street.

https://www.wf-ib.de/en/projects/spezialtiefbau/schlitzwaende-und-dichtwaende/projekte/mater-stop-box-metro-dublin-ireland/

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

I share your cynicism believe me. But FF and FG aren't that different.

Metro North is politically dead. I just want SOMETHING to be built, you get me? I feel this is now the only show in town and I just hope we get some detailed maps soon. I'm cautiously optimistic.

I get you. Don't blame you for your cynicism either. Time will tell.

FunkyDa2

donvito99 wrote: »

The old Irish Nationwide site has always been thought as the ideal area to tie in to the Green Line.

But it is to be developed as I understand.

I understand that there is a maximum practical slope for a rail system to function. According to Wikipedia(yeah!..I know!) the DLR (Docklands Light Rail) has a slope of 17 to 1 where it goes underground heading towards Bank. If that slope were to be used in this location, bearing in mind that the track has to rise maybe 15 metres (10 from underground plus another 5 to rise up to the Ranelagh stop), would that involve the severing of Dartmouth Road and Northbrook Road?

ricimaki

LionelNashe wrote: »

Does anyone know where exactly the Mater stop would be? (Serious question)
Could FG get away with proposing Leo Street? (Not a serious question)

Here is the area directly above the station box that was built there years ago. They left plenty of room for passenger access

donvito99

FunkyDa2 wrote: »

I understand that there is a maximum practical slope for a rail system to function. According to Wikipedia(yeah!..I know!) the DLR (Docklands Light Rail) has a slope of 17 to 1 where it goes underground heading towards Bank. If that slope were to be used in this location, bearing in mind that the track has to rise maybe 15 metres (10 from underground plus another 5 to rise up to the Ranelagh stop), would that involve the severing of Dartmouth Road and Northbrook Road?

I should think that Dartmouth Road would be impassable to vehicular traffic. It's approximately 240m from Northbrook Road to the Canal. At the DLR rate you posted, it would only have descended approx. 15m (i.e. to about ground level, not really scratching the surface of a sunken portal).

Shurimgreat

It makes no sense to continue metro north all the way to Sandyford.
It should stop at charlemont. If southsiders want to go to the northside/airport, they get off the luas at charlemont and get on metro north. Otherwise they stay on the existing luas.
This would be by far the easiest and cheapest approach with minimal impact on the existing green luas line.

ted1

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It makes no sense to continue metro north all the way to Sandyford.
It should stop at charlemont. If southsiders want to go to the northside/airport, they get off the luas at charlemont and get on metro north. Otherwise they stay on the existing luas.
This would be by far the easiest and cheapest approach with minimal impact on the existing green luas line.

That’s a half arsed approach. The LUAS is full from sandyford, there a couple of thousand homes being added in cherrywood. The line is ready to be upgraded to metro and it makes perfect sense to bring it to sandyford.

MJohnston

donvito99 wrote: »

I should think that Dartmouth Road would be impassable to vehicular traffic. It's approximately 240m from Northbrook Road to the Canal. At the DLR rate you posted, it would only have descended approx. 15m (i.e. to about ground level, not really scratching the surface of a sunken portal).

You can't measure to the canal, as the Carroll's Building is actually protected structure, so it can't be removed. That said, 15m would be more than ground level - the existing Luas tracks are only about 5m above ground.

Actually, simply of out of curiosity, does anyone know how far a tunnel portal must have descended before it can go under another building or road? If we assume dual bore tunnels (even if the entire length of tunnel is single bore, I think you'd have to assume dual bore in a space restricted section like this).

I'm making the assumption here that they're going for a non-destructive approach with the existing tracking - ie. they won't try to remove part of the existing elevated Luas structure and then construct the tunnel portal 'inside' of the bounds of where that structure was. Doing this would certainly avoid a substantial amount of CPOing, but it would also completely sever the Luas line long before the Metro could open for operation, which wouldn't be acceptable.

Anyway, to even match that 17:1 gradient, you'd need about 260m of length to rise 15m. Here's about the only way I could see that working:



Dartmouth Road will almost certainly have to close, though I think they could retain Northbrook Road with a slightly lower height restriction.

LeinsterDub

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It makes no sense to continue metro north all the way to Sandyford.
It should stop at charlemont. If southsiders want to go to the northside/airport, they get off the luas at charlemont and get on metro north. Otherwise they stay on the existing luas.
This would be by far the easiest and cheapest approach with minimal impact on the existing green luas line.

The green line is at wedge capacity , the new longer trams only plaster over the cracks. Metro capacity and frequency are required.


3rd (capacity capacity improve) time's the charm