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

MJohnston

derekbro wrote: »

Had a quick read through but didn't see anything definite about the length of the trains/stations apart from 60+metres in the key facts image. The stations look quite short though, is there anything definite in there?

There's nothing definite. However, they are pushing for automated, which means high-floor vehicles. The previous Green Line Tie-in report made a baseline assumption of 100m station boxes, with 60m trains, and I see no reason to assume this is any different.

So I think we're looking at 60m trains and platforms to start with, but the stations will be excavated such that expansion to 90m is extremely simple.

MJohnston

ciaran75 wrote: »

any confirmation of driverless / fully segregated tracks?

Nothing is ever really confirmed until it's in operation, but they're definitely pushing for driverless:
https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Automation

It'll be fully segregated by nature anyway.

Stephen Strange

I know it mentions 60m+ vehicles, but does it mention the actual platform lengths anywhere? I can't see it, but I may be missing it.

CatInABox

MJohnston wrote: »

They've basically addressed every single complaint about the previous plan, Na Fianna no longer disrupted, Ranelagh snobs no longer inconvenienced, College Gate folks very well compensated (including the non-owner tenants), etc. And they haven't really introduced any new wrinkles to the plan either, so hopefully most of the big issues have been ironed out now and this time around will be much smoother.

Of course, we've still got Wildcard Ryan who could probably conjure up a few more roadblocks to ruin the thing even more.

I'm very impressed with it as well, they've essentially nullified all the opposition to it, aside from Tara St. Even there, it's not as big an issue as has been made out in the media (no surprise really). I was reading the report on the Public Consultation, and they had a grand total of twenty nine submissions around Tara St.

Twenty fecking nine. It's less than one percent of the total. Seems like the Griffith Avenue folks really got riled up, they accounted for a whopping 67% of all submissions.

EDIT: And two of the Tara St submissions were supporting the project.

ThomasKilal

hey all, im a landlord in dublin 1 city centre and was wondering what price hikes there will be around the area due to this being built around dorset street

AlmightyCushion

ThomasKilal wrote: »

hey all, im a landlord in dublin 1 city centre and was wondering what price hikes there will be around the area due to this being built around dorset street

It's not due to open for nearly a decade so any price increases as a result of this plan are probably years away.

Pixel Eater

So they have decided to go single bore and they've listed the advantages in terms of cost and ease of construction. Could someone explain to me why wasn't this the approach from the start? What is the advantages of double bore exactly?

jd

My trip from Northwood to Citywest could be fun. But it's a Yes from me..

MJohnston

Stephen Strange wrote: »

I know it mentions 60m+ vehicles, but does it mention the actual platform lengths anywhere? I can't see it, but I may be missing it.

The route drawings are to scale, and a quick look suggests that all the stations are basically the same length:



Basically the station excavations are around 125m by that scale. I think you can presume that the inner markings are the initial platform lengths, which would be about 65m.

The crucial thing is that the station boxes are long enough to accommodate future expansion to 90m, which they are.

Idbatterim

was listening to Pat Kenny earlier, he was very pro the tunneling and segregation, and said what do you expect but the joke we have with luas cross city and the traffic conflicts! Given the standard of the media here, I was relatively impressed. that said, he only has a fairly basic knowledge of the scheme in my opinion...

L1011

Pixel Eater wrote: »

So they have decided to go single bore and they've listed the advantages in terms of cost and ease of construction. Could someone explain to me why wasn't this the approach from the start? What is the advantages of double bore exactly?

Twin bore tunnels are safer basically in terms of evacuation (to the second tunnel), fire containment etc etc. However new installs, fully driverless etc reduce the risks of an incident happening hugely.

Page 22 of the document gives a rationale for claiming that the massively enhanced evacuation from a failed train in single bore counteracts this.

jd wrote: »

My trip from Northwood to Citywest could be fun. But it's a Yes from me..

Metro to Cross Guns, train to Hazelhatch, Bus Connects W8 to Citywest - all on the one ticket!

(W8 frequency is not planned to be very high...)

orangerhyme

L1011 wrote: »

Twin bore tunnels are safer basically in terms of evacuation (to the second tunnel), fire containment etc etc. However new installs, fully driverless etc reduce the risks of an incident happening hugely.

Page 22 of the document gives a rationale for claiming that the massively enhanced evacuation from a failed train in single bore counteracts this.



Metro to Cross Guns, train to Hazelhatch, Bus Connects W8 to Citywest - all on the one ticket!

(W8 frequency is not planned to be very high...)

If it actually goes ahead people will forget quite quickly about the south side aspect.

It's great for the north side of Dublin, particularly Ballymena.

Does Single Bore mean that the one track above the other?

jd

L1011 wrote: »

Metro to Cross Guns, train to Hazelhatch, Bus Connects W8 to Citywest - all on the one tic

I was talking about my commute while the Northwood Staion Box is constructed!

AlmightyCushion

orangerhyme wrote: »

If it actually goes ahead people will forget quite quickly about the south side aspect.

It's great for the north side of Dublin, particularly Ballymena.

Does Single Bore mean that the one track above the other?

Didn't realise they were extending it that far north. How is Brexit gonna affect that :pac:

loyatemu

MJohnston wrote: »

They've basically addressed every single complaint about the previous plan, Na Fianna no longer disrupted, Ranelagh snobs no longer inconvenienced, College Gate folks very well compensated (including the non-owner tenants), etc. And they haven't really introduced any new wrinkles to the plan either, so hopefully most of the big issues have been ironed out now and this time around will be much smoother.

Of course, we've still got Wildcard Ryan who could probably conjure up a few more roadblocks to ruin the thing even more.

presumably he'll be demanding that the tunnel continue to Rathfarnham, or was that just a smokescreen for his self-serving nimbyism?

CatInABox

MJohnston wrote: »

The route drawings are to scale, and a quick look suggests that all the stations are basically the same length:

They'll also be as standardised as possible.

MetroLink will leverage standardisation and economies of scale in station construction to achieve cost effectiveness.

Dats me

derekbro wrote: »

Had a quick read through but didn't see anything definite about the length of the trains/stations apart from 60+metres in the key facts image. The stations look quite short though, is there anything definite in there?

I did some brutal measuring by holding up the end off my pen to the map scale and then to the station (this is in the detailed station maps in the consultation document. It looks like the station is 90m, 60m station to start off with.

plodder

Pixel Eater wrote: »

So they have decided to go single bore and they've listed the advantages in terms of cost and ease of construction. Could someone explain to me why wasn't this the approach from the start? What is the advantages of double bore exactly?

Also, twin bore means smaller tunnels and less risk of surface damage. So, the tunnels can be closer to the surface, which means less excavation for stations. Single bore therefore means more excavation to get to the deeper tunnels. Looking at the original tunnel configuration study, most of the (likely) options seemed to be based on single bore. So, it's not a surprise they went that way.

MJohnston

Dats me wrote: »

I did some brutal measuring by holding up the end off my pen to the map scale and then to the station (this is in the detailed station maps in the consultation document. It looks like the station is 90m, 60m station to start off with.

Top tip, Adobe Acrobat has a measuring tool (as you can see from my post above)

salmocab

loyatemu wrote: »

presumably he'll be demanding that the tunnel continue to Rathfarnham, or was that just a smokescreen for his self-serving nimbyism?

Very much the second part, he’ll continue banging the drum now though as he wants to portray himself as a green when really he couldn’t give a toss so long as he gets re-elected.

Idbatterim

you would wonder with Ryan, was he doing it for yimby reasons or did he actually believe that another fortune would be spent with his scheme? its not that is hair brained, its that the figures involved are so insane for one project on top of what is proposed, that makes it laughter lounge stuff!

Also, I dont think this is simply Dunville avenue , its the green line closure for a period, I really think that is possibly the bigger reason behind running it to charlemont...

Dats me

Idbatterim wrote: »

you would wonder with Ryan, was he doing it for yimby reasons or did he actually believe that another fortune would be spent with his scheme? its not that is hair brained, its that the figures involved are so insane for one project on top of what is proposed, that makes it laughter lounge stuff!

Also, I dont think this is simply Dunville avenue , its the green line closure for a period, I really think that is possibly the bigger reason behind running it to charlemont...

Currently on the website they haven't any detailed reports backing up their decisions. I'll be fairly devastated if the don't release them, they should have done up a proper one on the disruption during the Green Line upgrade.

orangerhyme

Lots of green fields around the stations north of the airport so lots of $$ to be made.

The swords station is a bit of a hike for most of the swords population

bk

Grandeeod wrote: »

Yes I said the whole project won't happen. I still stand by that. I said don't trust politicians in relation to big projects like this. I also said there would be a fudge in todays announcement and there was. Going back a little further in this thread I said that due to a fudge in the design of luas back in the late 90s, that upgrading the Green line would be a difficult prospect. No realistic provision was made. That's two fudges now. Doesn't look good, does it?

And before anyone here tries to shout me down about being negative all the time, I'm disgusted by this decision. I'm disgusted by previous decisions. I don't post here to win some popularity contest about being right. I express my opinion in the hope that it brings a dollop of reality to what we are up against.

Exactly, I knew you would be disgusted by all this and I've no doubt that you would have been overjoyed if you were wrong and if it all went ahead. That is why I didn't like the look of some posters using your name like that.

I hope you are wrong about non of it happening, but I think you want this to happen as badly as the rest of us.

orangerhyme

Idbatterim wrote: »

you would wonder with Ryan, was he doing it for yimby reasons or did he actually believe that another fortune would be spent with his scheme? its not that is hair brained, its that the figures involved are so insane for one project on top of what is proposed, that makes it laughter lounge stuff!

Also, I dont think this is simply Dunville avenue , its the green line closure for a period, I really think that is possibly the bigger reason behind running it to charlemont...

I think the same thing. I read disruption up to 4 years one place, up to two years somewhere else.
They're just kicking the can down the road though.
Shane Ross will be gone by then

Brian CivilEng

When the website went live there was a link to an Engineering Report for the Preferred Route, but the link was dead. This link seems to have been deleted now. Hoping that engineering report appears soon.

Idbatterim

A crucial question, can the link to bray and south still go ahead?

Muahahaha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The Green Party will never get a preference from me again after this. Ryan is an absolute disgrace. The idea of a “Green” party leader scuppering a project like this enrages me.

My abiding memory of the Green party is from circa 2009-10 when the entire banking system and economy were collapsing around us while at the same time John Gormley and Eamon Ryan were in the Dail shouting about banning stag hunting. The phrase 're-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic' has never been more apt. I gave the Greens a preference in the previous election, never never again after that episode. They kept Fianna Fail in power two years longer than was necessary, Brian Cowen was going around like a drunk boxer and the Greens facilitated the damage him and his party did.

Anyway this fudge isn't as big a fudge as I initially thought. You would hope though that the Green line gets over capacity during the actual construction of the Metro and they re-visit the tie in then rather than only planning it from 2027 onwards. The NTA are being very fair with College Gate, there are no other alternatives so it has to be there and they are offering compensation and help to rehouse both tenants and owners which is fair enough all around IMO. Leisure centre will be rebuilt too so more good news for those who use it.

Its generally all good news but the big question is going to be costs & funding. Current cost projections of €3bn are out of date, it is more likely €4-4.5bn right now but as yet the public at large does not know this. The project could meet a lot of resistance from rural Ireland when the costs are released. If anything the project should be done in tandem with the M20 Cork to Limerick motorway so at least the govt can say they are not ignoring rural Ireland.

Jamie2k9

Idbatterim wrote: »

A crucial question, can the link to bray and south still go ahead?

Luas from Brides Glen to Bray can but would stop at Sandyford if/when G Line becomes a metro.

plodder

orangerhyme wrote: »

Lots of green fields around the stations north of the airport so lots of $$ to be made.

and therefore lots of development levies to help pay for infrastructure.

The swords station is a bit of a hike for most of the swords population

Most of the existing population, but even still I would see people using local buses to get to it, given its likely speed and reliability.

ToBeFrank123

ciaran75 wrote: »

any confirmation of driverless / fully segregated tracks?

sorry found it.

Automated Trains
Since MetroLink will be segregated from
all other traffic, including pedestrians and
cyclists, we have a great opportunity to
make it a driverless system. Other train lines
are adapting automation into their existing
systems which is challenging. MetroLink has
a significant advantage as we can design
for automation from the start.
MetroLink will model itself on the
Copenhagen Metro and the fully
automated lines on the Barcelona Metro,
which utilise proven automated train
control systems.
The trains are supervised from a control
centre run by operational, security
and safety staff who can monitor every
carriage, station and platform through
CCTV and communicate with passengers
by public address. Passengers can contact
controllers directly from their carriage.
Since operators no longer need to work in
isolation driving the train, the entire focus
of staff switches to passengers’ needs. With
technology doing so much of the work,
train staff become customer-facing, which
improves the experience for customers.
Automated systems are extremely safe as
the capacity for human error is eliminated
and advanced signalling technology
improves safety. The platform edge is
blocked by screens to prevent anyone
falling onto the tracks. When the metro has
fully stopped, the train doors line up with
screen doors and they open simultaneously
so passengers can board the train safely.
Then they close together, and the train
moves off.
Timetables are both more flexible and
reliable as trains can adapt to changing
circumstances quickly. Choosing
automation also fed into the decision on
tunnel types, which will be discussed in the
next section.

That would be great but somehow I can't see our unions entertaining it. So unless they are driverless from the start forget about trying to remove drivers down the line.

LeinsterDub

Shedite27 wrote: »

Any detail on how much cheaper it'll be?

Most likely more expensive due to construction inflation

L1011

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That would be great but somehow I can't see our unions entertaining it. So unless they are driverless from the start forget about trying to remove drivers down the line.

They'll be driverless from the start.

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

A crucial question, can the link to bray and south still go ahead?

No it and Luas Finglas are dead in the water

CatInABox

I think that the business case for this might be dicey. Without the extra length and stations provided by the green line upgrade, the cost benefit analysis is going to suffer, and the NTA highlight these business cases as "Stop/Go". Not sure how they'll make up the numbers on it.

orangerhyme

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No it and Luas Finglas are dead in the water

I agree about Bray extension dead for now but Finglas won't really be affected. The capacity issues are northbound from south side not vice versa.

orangerhyme

CatInABox wrote: »

I think that the business case for this might be dicey. Without the extra length and stations provided by the green line upgrade, the cost benefit analysis is going to suffer, and the NTA highlight these business cases as "Stop/Go". Not sure how they'll make up the numbers on it.

I was thinking same thing.

Also was thinking maybe rationale of locating stations in shopping center at Carlton cinema and also Ballymun to improve cost/benefit

Idbatterim

CatInABox wrote: »

I think that the business case for this might be dicey. Without the extra length and stations provided by the green line upgrade, the cost benefit analysis is going to suffer, and the NTA highlight these business cases as "Stop/Go". Not sure how they'll make up the numbers on it.

wouldnt be that big of a concern to me, they can cook the numbers to suit themselves when they like it!

LeinsterDub

orangerhyme wrote: »

I agree about Bray extension dead for now but Finglas won't really be affected. The capacity issues are northbound from south side not vice versa.

Broombridge has been rammed more often than not in the morning . It's not as bad as the south side yet but it's on the way especially when Dart expansion comes online.

bk

While I'm disgusted that the southern end isn't going ahead, I'm actually quiet happy to see everything else I'd want from the plan seems to be happening and that they seem to be very cleverly manoeuvring around the main objections.

What we seem to be getting:
- Fully automated, High floor vehicles and fully segregated. Basically non of the compromises that were being suggested to help tie in with the Green line.
- Stations look to be 90m+ (though probably just 60m to start with).
- Building under the Carlton Cinema site reduces disruption on O'Connell St and I love the idea of stations fully integrated into shopping centers.
- Still going to Charlemont/Ranelagh area, should make the future upgrade of the green line relatively straight forward. They could have just stopped at Stephens Green if they didn't want to eventually do the tie-in.

Reducing objections:
- Not using Na Fianna as a tunnel site or even a station site. Ironically this is actually a win for Home farm club and Na Fianna look stupid now with nothing to show for it.
- Avoiding issues with the other GAA club in Northwood.
- Avoiding the Green line objections
- Avoiding possible objections in the Swords area
- Tara St might still be an issue, but looks like attractive offers to both tenants and owners.

I feel it looks more certain now then before, much more concrete plan.

While not upgrading the green line is a pity (and very painful for those who rely on it), I've long said it is just the cherry on the top. Much more important is that we just build at least one Metro.

Once we have a Metro and it is proven to the public, I've no doubt people will be crying out for more Metros and upgrading the green line to Metro. We just need to get the first one done, like what happened with the Luas.

If losing the Green line upgrade for now is what it takes to get Metrolink built, that sucks, but so be it.

ToBeFrank123

L1011 wrote: »

They'll be driverless from the start.

Thank goodness for that.

Although if the remote operators decide to go on strike, it could have the same impact.

Unions just love brining key infrastructure to a grinding halt and using it as leverage.

CatInABox

bk wrote: »

- Building under the Carlton Cinema site reduces disruption on O'Connell St and I love the idea of stations fully integrated into shopping centers.

I'd agree totally with your post, with a caveat on this one. I think this would be great, so long as there's no access problems once the centre closes in the evening. Should be extremely easy, but still, I'd be wary.

Jamie2k9

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Broombridge has been rammed more often than not in the morning . It's not as bad as the south side yet but it's on the way especially when Dart expansion comes online.

Freq is only 50% of what it could be...

L1011

CatInABox wrote: »

I'd agree totally with your post, with a caveat on this one. I think this would be great, so long as there's no access problems once the centre closes in the evening. Should be extremely easy, but still, I'd be wary.

Copenhagen Metro has a station in a shopping centre, there is still access via slightly more constrained corridors 24/7. Needs to be negotiated in advance but it is done elsewhere.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Thank goodness for that.

Although if the remote operators decide to go on strike, it could have the same impact.

Unions just love brining key infrastructure to a grinding halt and using it as leverage.

They're automatic, not drones. There isn't a remote operator for each train; there a limited number of more senior monitoring staff who would likely have a no-strike agreement.

The technology is Very Very Old in computing terms too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SelTrac is a major operator, and has been proven for nearly four decades.

LuckyLloyd

L1011 wrote: »

There's no details of how they intend to increase Green line capacity other than a statement that there "will be need" and it will be "dealt with".

I would consider the bare bones of that to be essential if they're proposing that as a replacement for Metrolink.

Ultimately, it's up to the residents of the Green Line to fight their corner. Building Charlemont to Swords now has to be the pragmatic priority. College Gate and Tara St is the only major public objection that remains, and their statement today sounds promising in terms of tackling it.

bk

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Thank goodness for that.

Although if the remote operators decide to go on strike, it could have the same impact.

Unions just love brining key infrastructure to a grinding halt and using it as leverage.

Sure controllers can go on strike too. However with driver operated trains you have both drivers AND controllers, both of which can go on strike, thus doubling the chance of strike. By eliminating one group, disturbance becomes less likely.

Also it is easier to keep a relatively small number of controllers well paid and happy, then a much larger number of drivers. Specially since in the past drivers were represented by unions with a particular political mindset.

Idbatterim

Is it going anywhere those Na Fianna fools? they might object that the vibration from the TBM will effect the players!

CatInABox

Idbatterim wrote: »

Is it going anywhere those Na Fianna fools? they might object that the vibration from the TBM will effect the players!

A station just to the south of their pitch, and an emergency access tunnel in Albert College park to the north.

cgcsb

L1011 wrote: »

T Will make more sense to allow the market to decide what goes in rather than TII rebuilding an apartment block themselves.

Wow, someone still thinks 'the market' is what's best.

tikkahunter

Idbatterim wrote: »

Is it going anywhere those Na Fianna fools? they might object that the vibration from the TBM will effect the players!

Maybe do your homework on it , there is a primary school and a secondary school on the grounds which where not even considered in fact the London based architects did not even know they where there . So there is more than the 200 odd Na Fianna teams that use the pitch/club house to be considered. Last Saturday and every Saturday 230 (and rising)kids aged between 4 and 7 use that pitch and club house for their nursery .Do do you class these children as fools too?