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

cgcsb

The NTA are actually politically astute, I'd expect they've built in these 'issues' like the Berlin wall of Ranelagh so they can be seen to have a row with politicians and come up with a concession, planned all along. So the politician is seen to get something for the locals and the politicians little pea brain is so pre-occupied with winning it's little 'concession', it doesn't try other more serious attempts to bring the project down.

jd

cgcsb wrote: »

The NTA are actually politically astute, I'd expect they've built in these 'issues' like the Berlin wall of Ranelagh so they can be seen to have a row with politicians and come up with a concession, planned all along. So the politician is seen to get something for the locals and the politicians little pea brain is so pre-occupied with winning it's little 'concession', it doesn't try other more serious attempts to bring the project down.

Yup, was thinking that having a TBM launch site in the EPR at Na Fianna may have been so that it isn't raised again eg the usual suspects : "NTA are wasting tax payers money by not having launch site at Na Fianna, it is the half way point. yada yada yada"

Qrt

jd wrote: »

Yup, was thinking that having a TBM launch site in the EPR at Na Fianna may have been so that it isn't raised again eg the usual suspects : "NTA are wasting tax payers money by not having launch site at Na Fianna, it is the half way point. yada yada yada"

If you read the documents, they even studied having the portal on Harcourt Street! It basically said, "it's cheaper, but would destroy the city." I had a good laugh when I read it.

D.L.R.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I have been frequently criticized here for my negativity in relation to developing projects like Metrolink. Once the metro concept was allowed slip back into a "planning" stage, it was obvious this would happen. Its called reinventing the wheel and politicians are great at that.

Metrolink is superior to the Metro North shambles.

Its dismaying to see all the negative press but hopefully it's just the usual hysterical nonsense and it will die down, with the more serious concerns being addressed and the loo lahs being shushed.

Lot of loo lahs to contend with in this country.

Idbatterim

Metrolink is superior to the Metro North shambles.

the big difference is, metro north went through this same bull**** and actually had planning. Metro north was postponed and scrapped on cost grounds! The irony that that is the reason they used to shelve it and now metro link will be more costly :rolleyes: I agree metro link if it is ever built, will be superior, but Id happily have taken metro north given that if another recession hits, capital expenditure will be paired to the bone, AGAIN, in favour of sustaining the world class welfare rates etc...

Zebra3

Idbatterim wrote: »

the big difference is, metro north went through this same bull**** and actually had planning. Metro north was postponed and scrapped on cost grounds! The irony that that is the reason they used to shelve it and now metro link will be more costly :rolleyes: I agree metro link if it is ever built, will be superior, but Id happily have taken metro north given that if another recession hits, capital expenditure will be paired to the bone, AGAIN, in favour of sustaining the world class welfare rates etc...

What world class welfare rates?

The ones for our politicians and multi nationals?

D.L.R.

Idbatterim wrote: »

the big difference is, metro north went through this same bull**** and actually had planning. Metro north was postponed and scrapped on cost grounds! The irony that that is the reason they used to shelve it and now metro link will be more costly :rolleyes: I agree metro link if it is ever built, will be superior, but Id happily have taken metro north given that if another recession hits, capital expenditure will be paired to the bone, AGAIN, in favour of sustaining the world class welfare rates etc...

Agreed, I'd have taken MN at the time too, but a straight choice between the two and its Metrolink every time.

MN terminated in the city centre and depended heavily on DU. The whole Dublin masterplan back then was a scatty, hairbrained mess.

D.L.R.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Green Party wanting to build it out west, Michael McDowell wants it not built at all, but build ten Luas lines instead (if only there was a plan somewhere for ten Luas lines - or even one), and now this Labour guy does want it to pop up unexpectedly somewhere because of the childer.

McDowell's own government future proofed the Green line for upgrade to Metro. Typical Irish poltician with an axe to grind. The luas is not fit for long distance commuting and I truly pity anyone using the current lines from the outer suburbs. 45 minutes to cover the same distance the Dart does in 20.

I like the Greens but this is an odd policy for them, you'd think they'd support a cost effective project that gets thousands of cars off the road. A Metro SW is a different project and not even in planning. One step at a time folks.

As for the Labour guy, his argument is asinine. Trains coming out of holes in the ground. Get a grip.

bk

Idbatterim wrote: »

the big difference is, metro north went through this same bull**** and actually had planning. Metro north was postponed and scrapped on cost grounds! The irony that that is the reason they used to shelve it and now metro link will be more costly :rolleyes: I agree metro link if it is ever built, will be superior, but Id happily have taken metro north given that if another recession hits, capital expenditure will be paired to the bone, AGAIN, in favour of sustaining the world class welfare rates etc...

While Metrolink will be more expensive, it will also have a much better cost benefit analysis due to the relative cheap upgrade of the Green line and thus the overall much longer length of the project. Plus better links at Whitworth Road and Tara.

In other words it is much better value for money, while being a bit more expensive.

But I do agree with your fears of another recession hitting. Brexit, etc.

Idbatterim

I hope the Luas green line is rammed again come autumn, with capacity issues. As it will keep more pressure on getting thus project delivered. Also I’m fully expecting some 60m low floor tram, driver based botch job! Hence my reasoning for hoping the Luas is bedlam again come autumn. It will put more pressure on them to not go for the usual cheap job. In for a few billion, in for a euro at this stage ...

Sam Russell

Idbatterim wrote: »

I hope the Luas green line is rammed again come autumn, with capacity issues. As it will keep more pressure on getting thus project delivered. Also I’m fully expecting some 60m low floor tram, driver based botch job! Hence my reasoning for hoping the Luas is bedlam again come autumn. It will put more pressure on them to not go for the usual cheap job. In for a few billion, in for a euro at this stage ...

It is not cost efficient to go for driver controlled trams. It has to be high floor metro trains, as the cost of the driverless trains will be less over a few years (as no wages for drivers), not to mention the increased speed and capacity.

Idbatterim

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is not cost efficient to go for driver controlled trams. It has to be high floor metro trains, as the cost of the driverless trains will be less over a few years (as no wages for drivers), not to mention the increased speed and capacity.

I agree. You’re preaching to the choir! But do the decision makers agree? Knowing this country, they’d go with the 1% cheaper option even if it meant a dramatic capacity drop!

Sam Russell

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree. You’re preaching to the choir! But do the decision makers agree? Knowing this country, they’d go with the 1% cheaper option even if it meant a dramatic capacity drop!

Not from reports in the media. Single tunnel, high floor driverless 60 metre metro trains is the whisper.

Now, we know ......

Idbatterim

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not from reports in the media. Single tunnel, high floor driverless 60 metre metro trains is the whisper.

Now, we know ......

Great until I got to the last bit. Would they not at least put in 90m platforms from the get go?!

salmocab

Idbatterim wrote: »

Great until I got to the last bit. Would they not at least put in 90m platforms from the get go?!

Think it was reported that the stations boxes were about 100 meters to accommodate the 90 meter trains.

CatInABox

salmocab wrote: »

Think it was reported that the stations boxes were about 100 meters to accommodate the 90 meter trains.

It's looking like they're going with the Single Large Bore option, with trains on different levels. In that type of tunnel, it's trivial to extend the platform, as the space is already there, it's just empty.

LongboardPro

CatInABox wrote: »

It's looking like they're going with the Single Large Bore option, with trains on different levels. In that type of tunnel, it's trivial to extend the platform, as the space is already there, it's just empty.

Source of this information?

CatInABox

LongboardPro wrote: »

Source of this information?

For the single tunnel stuff, it came out in June that they had decided to look at single tunnel option instead of twin tunnel, in order to avoid having the TBM site at Na Fianna.

For the easily expandable stuff, that's from the tunnel study on their website, which, in my opinion (and it's only my opinion), reads like they want to do a large Monotunnel, which allows them to do the platforms, crossovers and turnbacks all within the single tunnel. Much is made of their experience with building the Dublin Port Tunnel, a tunnel which had roughly the TBM size.

As I said, it's only my opinion, but that's the way it's all reading to me.

jd

CatInABox wrote: »

For the single tunnel stuff, it came out in June that they had decided to look at single tunnel option instead of twin tunnel, in order to avoid having the TBM site at Na Fianna.

I asked an engineer at one of the consultations about it, and he said it was still being actively considered by design team. I got the impression the design team were divided on it.

CatInABox

jd wrote: »

I asked an engineer at one of the consultations about it, and he said it was still being actively considered by design team. I got the impression the design team were divided on it.

Yeah, but since the consultations on it, they've told politicians that they've essentially ruled out the twin bore. See here. They say "veering towards", but I'd eat my hat if it isn't single tunnel.

jd

CatInABox wrote: »

Yeah, but since the consultations on it, they've told politicians that they've essentially ruled out the twin bore. See here. They say "veering towards", but I'd eat my hat if it isn't single tunnel.

Yup, sorry I know that . However some media commentators (eg the good senator) have been portraying this as if the engineers had essentially gone back to the drawing board and come up with a single tunnel solution in response to concerns re Na Fianna.

cgcsb

jd wrote: »

Yup, sorry I know that . However some media commentators (eg the good senator) have been portraying this as if the engineers had essentially gone back to the drawing board and come up with a single tunnel solution in response to concerns re Na Fianna.

Politicians and the media will paint it that way. Look lads I got this redesigned for you. When actually it's just that one option was selected over another. I think this is done on purpose to give parish pumpers a distraction so they can be seen to be getting a concession for constituents and they don't try to derail the whole project.

Unelectable PDs aside of course

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

Politicians and the media will paint it that way. Look lads I got this redesigned for you. When actually it's just that one option was selected over another. I think this is done on purpose to give parish pumpers a distraction so they can be seen to be getting a concession for constituents and they don't try to derail the whole project.

Unelectable PDs aside of course

Yeah, politicians are the same the world over. I wouldn't have been surprised to see some claiming that their policies were responsible for ending the drought recently.

D.L.R.

CatInABox wrote: »

Much is made of their experience with building the Dublin Port Tunnel, a tunnel which had roughly the TBM size.

As long as its big enough for the trains to fit... :rolleyes:

random_guy

IDOM have now been brought in it seems.

https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018/08/02/spanish-engineers-join-jacobs-on-dublin-metro-development-team/

madbeanman

random_guy wrote: »

IDOM have now been brought in it seems.

https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018/08/02/spanish-engineers-join-jacobs-on-dublin-metro-development-team/

There is a site on the internet called global rail news. What a world we live in.

MJohnston

madbeanman wrote: »

There is a site on the internet called global rail news. What a world we live in.

That's surely one of the least surprising things that exist on the internet.

0868832875

Is there all day parking in Bray near dart?

Sam Russell

0868832875 wrote: »

Is there all day parking in Bray near dart?

Mod: Can we keep this thread Metrolink - as in the title.


That question belongs in Motoring & Transport/Commuting and Transport.

LongboardPro

I was working on a rail map of Dublin before Metrolink was even announced but have since made a concept map of Dublin map consisting of the Metro, DART / Rail and Luas. I meant to post it here ages ago so here it is! Accepting constructive criticism if you have any.

Edit: I know it's not perfect with line angles and consistency or whatever but I think it gives a good overall view of the network.