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

marno21

dubhthach wrote: »

Sure but is there any plans to build a train station on the Maynooth/Docklands line(s) at this point? If not than there is no interconnection other than a walk to Drumcondra station which Google puts at about 1km walking distance.

There isn't.. yet.

The information is only 24 hours old and hasn't been fully finalised yet. This will be published in due course

lucernarian

MJohnston wrote: »

No evidence so far as with everything Metro, but it'd make a tonne of sense (of course CIE would have to enable the Whitworth stop on their lines, which may preclude sensible decisions occurring!).

I think there's enough room though, on the west side of the N2, on the side where Des Kelly currently is. Take a look on Google Maps, the section between the two rail lines is currently wide enough to house a car park, with room enough for two car lanes along the thinnest part. On the canal side, it's a bit more squeezed, but you could also stagger the platform on that side to be a slight bit further west.

Someone mentioned earlier that the RSC vetoed a station by cross guns bridge on the Irish Rail lines.

In any case, I measured the tennis courts and a bit more, to the east of Des Kelly, where the tracks are further apart. It's the guts of 60 metres... How could a station possibly be built where Des Kelly is?

donvito99

lucernarian wrote: »

Someone mentioned earlier that the RSC vetoed a station by cross guns bridge on the Irish Rail lines.

In any case, I measured the tennis courts and a bit more, to the east of Des Kelly, where the tracks are further apart. It's the guts of 60 metres... How could a station possibly be built where Des Kelly is?

I think it's easy to forget that there will be substantial CPO involved for station complexes across the entire length of the line and that station locations should not therefore be restricted to areas free from development.

And given that the length of tunnelling (13km), it think the prospect of single bore a la Barcelona Linea 9 gives rise to 'keyhole' type stations with less of a footprint than a more conventional twin bore arrangement.

lucernarian

donvito99 wrote: »

I think it's easy to forget that there will be substantial CPO involved for station complexes across the entire length of the line and that station locations should not therefore be restricted to areas free from development.

And given that the length of tunnelling (13km), it think the prospect of single bore a la Barcelona Linea 9 gives rise to 'keyhole' type stations with less of a footprint than a more conventional twin bore arrangement.

Are you suggesting it's possible to CPO the western commuter/Sligo train line? I assume you're referring to that keyhole method otherwise, as there's no space for a normal station box. I couldn't give a fig about Des Kelly being in the way.
The single bore would change things if it were possible/allowed. There's no way to fit a station with 90 metre platforms in between those two lines at cross guns bridge without a lot of mining, with the conventional approach that Metro North was going to use.

Zebra3

A metro stop at Cross Guns would leave the metro very close to the Luas (basically just other side of Dalymount) with quite a large gap between there and the current DART line without rail/light rail services.

Moving the metro out from Drumcondra (beside Croker) would be madness.

xper

MJohnston wrote: »

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.

I'll remind everyone that we found out what is happening to accommodate the Metro at this site several weeks ago.See Post #4215. It will pass under the basement of the office block in a tunnel and enter a cut and cover stretch south of it.

If* the map in today's Irish Times is correct and Ranelagh is going to be the northmost stop on the upgraded section of the Green line then it seems pretty likely that this is indeed the location of the south tunnel portal and tie in to the existing Luas tracks.

(* one of the other maps posted in this thread today has clear errors on it so "If" applies).

MJohnston

xper wrote: »

I'll remind everyone that we found out what is happening to accommodate the Metro at this site several weeks ago.See Post #4215. It will pass under the basement of the office block in a tunnel and enter a cut and cover stretch south of it.

If* the map in today's Irish Times is correct and Ranelagh is going to be the northmost stop on the upgraded section of the Green line then it seems pretty likely that this is indeed the location of the south tunnel portal and tie in to the existing Luas tracks.

(* one of the other maps posted in this thread today has clear errors on it so "If" applies).

I forgot about that post, good work! Though it still leaves open the question of exactly how the Metro line will negotiate the transition from tunnel to the elevated line with a reasonable gradient - I still think the route I marked is viable if you adjust the top end over a bit to match your post.

Also, if you're referring to the map that still had Drumcondra listed on it as a stop, there's a different one here that annoyingly doesn't have the satellite overlay but at least shows that Charlemont Metro stop will be right on the underground/overground boundary - though it doesn't really clarify whether the station itself will be underground or overground!

plodder

Is there a drawing/map anywhere (public) showing the current Luas/DART alignments with the proposed Metro route overlaid?

Angry bird

What we have so far is largely speculation based on a source that the Irish Times claim they have. Forgive me if I don't place much faith in their claims that no doubt have helped with sales. As for the amount of idiot comment...

So let's stick with what we actually do know shall we?

1. Metro line planned.
2. 2 existing options for metro north section.
3. Section of green line can readily be switched to metro.
4. There'll be a tunnel somewhere for metro to go underground from existing green line.
5. Everything else is speculation.

Coyote

The embankment is 5m above the road at the Canal and the bottom of the Canal is 4m below the road,
Leaving 2m between the canal and the top of the tunnel with 4m being about standard for underground tunnel that means the rails (bottom of the tunnel) needs to clime 15m to reach the level of the embankment rails

Heavy rail max climb is about 4% for Metro trains
4% gradient allows for 4m climb in 100m, to climb the 15 meters would need 375m to be above the road at Ranelagh
Both Dartmouth and Northbrook road would need to be turned in to dead ends as there would not be clearance for anything

Also I don't believe that the embankment was reinforced to carry heavy rail.

This would also mean having a level crossing Dunville Ave
I can’t see how it could be done till after Ranelagh/Dunville Ave
This would allow for an interchange between an underground station and the Charlemont Luas stop, and underground station at Ranelagh

bk

MJohnston wrote: »

Perhaps it goes back to something else I posted a while ago, about the feasibility of reducing the necessity for DU. If PPT becomes a viable choice for routing traffic from the Hazelhatch line to Docklands or maybe even Connolly, while being electrify parts of that line, you've taken out one big part of DU. If you reduce the volume of traffic passing through Connolly and the Loop Line bridge, by creating a new major terminus at Docklands (where there is a tonne of demand, and connections with the Luas), that's another portion of DU undercut.

Yes, this suddenly all makes a lot more sense. 2 billion for DART upgrades seemed excessive for just new trains and electrification. But a major new station interchange at Whitworth Road and Docklands and it suddenly starts to make sense.

Folks come from Hazelhatch would then have lots of options depending on where they are going:

- Change to Luas at Hueston for Red Line Stops
- Change to Metro at Whitworth to head North to the Airport or South to OCS, Tara St, SSG
- Stay on to the Docklands area and all the business/offices around there (I suspect the actual destination for a lot of people coming in on this line for work).

I realise there sounds to be a lot of overlap there. But I suspect there would be significant differences in Journey times.

For instance if you were heading to the IFSC, then I'd expect Hueston -> Whitworth Road -> Docklands would be much faster then Hueston -> Red Luas to Docklands.

Perhaps harder to tell if Hueston -> Whitworth Road -> Metro -> OCS would be faster then the Red Line Luas, but if you were heading to SSG/Grafton Street then it may well be.

Lots of interesting connection options.

CreativeSen

SeanW wrote: »

I just read today somewhere that the "Metro" will now avoid the interchange at Drumcondra train station in favour of a "Whitworth" stop in Phibsborough. (I suspect it will on Whitworth Road, for those that don't know the area, Whitworth Road is about half a mile long and runs from the old N1 just above Dorset St. Bridge in Drumcondra to a junction with the old N2 in Phibsboro)

And I thought "What the F@#%???" :mad:

No offense to Phibsborough, but rerouting away from Drumcondra is a mistake for two key reasons:

1. Abandoning a key interchange is in and of itself a questionable idea at any time.
2. The Drumcondra area itself is busier, the Drumcondra train station is in and of itself a key interchange with city roads and I've observed a double-peak usage pattern any time I'm in or near the station - as many people having a destination/interchange at Drumcondra (or more) than starting their journeys there like you would have at a purely suburban station.

If the idea is to provide better service to Phibsboro, great, but it cannot be at the expense of interchange at Drumcondra.

If the Metro is to be built at Cross Guns then i suspect they will build a new station to act as an interchange with the Maynooth & Cellbridge DARTS (as it will be eventually) the Newbridge Commuter and the Sligo & Longford Intercity.

If thats the case, either Drumcondra Station will close or will get a significantly reduced service. There will be no point in stopping all trains at both Cross Guns and Drumcondra, they are WAY too close together

Bray Head

I think the idea of a tunnel portal at Ranelagh is simply too awkward to execute and too likely to be held up in planning.

It makes much more sense to have the portal at the Dodder south of the Milltown stop.

ted1

MJohnston wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Tara Street is required for the Dart connection.

Dart to Tara Street and metro to the airport

Sure, I mean I know what the Tara Street station is ostensibly for, but I certainly disagree that it's required. I think O'Connell Street is so close that it would serve the DART connection just fine by itself.

I don't disagree that it will be a useful connection, but I'm just wondering whether the negatives of having to fit that station onto the Metro line will outweigh the positives.

It would be completely daft not to link them.

Go back to bed

MJohnston

ted1 wrote: »

It would be completely daft not to link them.

Go back to bed

It certainly would be great to link them, but it would also be great to avoid the trains having to slow to a crawl at this point because of the adverse curve of the track to reach SSG, Tara and OCS, and it would be great to avoid the extra expense of tunneling such a heavy deviation from a gentle straight line route. This is the balance I'm taking about. I think it's fair to wonder whether people should instead expect to transfer from the OCS Metro station to the Tara rail station on foot, as it's a very short distance

ted1

MJohnston wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

It would be completely daft not to link them.

Go back to bed

It certainly would be great to link them, but it would also be great to avoid the trains having to slow to a crawl at this point because of the adverse curve of the track to reach SSG, Tara and OCS, and it would be great to avoid the extra expense of tunneling such a heavy deviation from a gentle straight line route. This is the balance I'm taking about. I think it's fair to wonder whether people should instead expect to transfer from the OCS Metro station to the Tara rail station on foot, as it's a very short distance

Where on OCS will the stop be. Bear in mind plenty of people will be getting the dart with baggage and transferring to the airport?

We need joint up transport that’s the bottom line. Walking between OCS and a dart station isn’t joint up. It’s simply daft and is something that is not acceptable with modern transport systems

ted1

FYI it’s over 500m from Tara Street to The GPO

Idbatterim

ted1 wrote: »

Where on OCS will the stop be. Bear in mind plenty of people will be getting the dart with baggage and transferring to the airport?

We need joint up transport that’s the bottom line. Walking between OCS and a dart station isn’t joint up. It’s simply daft and is something that is not acceptable with modern transport systems

thats true about the luggage, if they was an underground pedestrian tunnel with travelator , it might be ok, but without it, on surface! forget it!

I wonder roughly what the cost for each 90m below ground station will be (I am strongly assuming they are going with 90m)

MJohnston

ted1 wrote: »

Where on OCS will the stop be. Bear in mind plenty of people will be getting the dart with baggage and transferring to the airport?

I reckon if there's a Tara Street station the OCS one will have to be at the very north end of the street, there's no way GPO + Tara would be practical at all.

orangerhyme

MJohnston wrote: »

It certainly would be great to link them, but it would also be great to avoid the trains having to slow to a crawl at this point because of the adverse curve of the track to reach SSG, Tara and OCS, and it would be great to avoid the extra expense of tunneling such a heavy deviation from a gentle straight line route. This is the balance I'm taking about. I think it's fair to wonder whether people should instead expect to transfer from the OCS Metro station to the Tara rail station on foot, as it's a very short distance

Maybe the OCS stop will be Marlborough st or one of the laneways off it.

If you draw a line from cross guns bridge - mater - Marlborough - Tara - SSG east, it's less of a curve

orangerhyme

orangerhyme wrote: »

Maybe the OCS stop will be Marlborough st or one of the laneways off it.

If you draw a line from cross guns bridge - mater - Marlborough - Tara - SSG east, it's less of a curve

Or maybe Talbot street, it would be easier to dig up

MJohnston

orangerhyme wrote: »

Maybe the OCS stop will be Marlborough st or one of the laneways off it.

If you draw a line from cross guns bridge - mater - Marlborough - Tara - SSG east, it's less of a curve

They'd almost be better with a Parnell station near the Luas stop, but I guess they want the OCS stop because it sounds good to have one.

orangerhyme

MJohnston wrote: »

They'd almost be better with a Parnell station near the Luas stop, but I guess they want the OCS stop because it sounds good to have one.

It's difficult cos it makes sense to have Metro link up with the luas junction at Abbey st/OCS but also at Tara st with the DART, but it looks difficult to do both.

Which is more important, which would you choose?

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

It certainly would be great to link them, but it would also be great to avoid the trains having to slow to a crawl at this point because of the adverse curve of the track to reach SSG, Tara and OCS, and it would be great to avoid the extra expense of tunneling such a heavy deviation from a gentle straight line route. This is the balance I'm taking about. I think it's fair to wonder whether people should instead expect to transfer from the OCS Metro station to the Tara rail station on foot, as it's a very short distance

I really get the feeling that this latest incarnation of Metro (and Ive said it before) is dragging us all back to the beginning. We may see 3 route options that involve Tara Street, Whitworth Road and then a more central route which will eventually be selected. A route that just bangs down the middle via OCS and Drumcondra (station area). In other words we are revisiting old ground. You can't blame me for thinking that its all a big spoof job and will lead nowhere.

Apart from Whitworth road/Phisboro, the Tara Street option was done to death years ago.

ted1

MJohnston wrote: »

orangerhyme wrote: »

Maybe the OCS stop will be Marlborough st or one of the laneways off it.

If you draw a line from cross guns bridge - mater - Marlborough - Tara - SSG east, it's less of a curve

They'd almost be better with a Parnell station near the Luas stop, but I guess they want the OCS stop because it sounds good to have one.

Or because it connects with the red line

ted1

orangerhyme wrote: »

orangerhyme wrote: »

Maybe the OCS stop will be Marlborough st or one of the laneways off it.

If you draw a line from cross guns bridge - mater - Marlborough - Tara - SSG east, it's less of a curve

Or maybe Talbot street, it would be easier to dig up

Metros often have 4 entrancres thst couid cover a decent area. You could have one on abbey street and Henry Street and on the far side

bk

How about Earl Place? Looks like it would perfectly fit the station box, 104 meters. Exits out on O'Connell Street, directly across from the Luas on OCS. Another exit onto Marlborough St by the Luas stop there and another exit onto Abbey Street for the Luas Stops there. Also an exit onto Earl Street which gives you nice pedestrian access to Henry Street. Sort of looks like it could be the perfect location. Only issue would be if it is wide enough for the station box and issues with the owners of Clery's.

Another option looks like right in front of the GPO, looks like there is 90m of space there between the Spire and the Luas stop, in the middle of the street. Could have exits onto Abbey St and by the OCS stop.

Final option would be just north of the spire, in the middle of OCS. Again plenty of space there and not as tight as the above option. An exit just by Henry St/OCS and Earl Street/OCS and another exit at the northern end of the station puts you close to the stop on the Northern end of OCS.

Where do people think it will go at Tara?

I'm assuming CPO of the houses between Luke St and Townsend St. Would nicely fit a station box there. Nice easy curve from OCS and then towards SSG E. Build a new complex for Tara Station there with nice new entrance and then build a big office building on top of the site later. Widen the foothpaths on Townsend St (fleet St too) and you are a nice, short, direct walk to Temple Bar and Trinity.

MJohnston

ted1 wrote: »

Or because it connects with the red line

It doesn't really connect, but I'm sure that's part of the consideration - I'd say they'll want to minimise the excavation on OCS both because of disruption and the geology with the river, so I would imagine they'll try and avoid an expansive station area here.

Telchak

Made a Google map of the proposed 2040 network, for all those people who seem confused about the Luas upgrade part of the project (click through for a better look)

salmocab

Cheers for that when I opened it my current location pin dropped in just about the perfect spot to complain that none of that is near my house. It’s like they started at how can we least help salmocab and kept everything well away from me