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

Sponge Bob

BTW as part of any enabling works I would permanently remove all copper telephone lines from this area and replace with fibre from the back of the affected buildings. The BXD Route also has remarkably little modern UPC cable as does most of D1 and D2 as compared to the rest of the city. Much of what is there has been installed to take Luas BXD into account.

Cathaoirleach

monument

D.L.R. wrote: »

2 separate stations wouldn't be further from dart/luas, nor would they cause more disruption to build.

Yes, they would be further away.

How can you suggest placing stations in locations greater distances away from the Luas and Dart and claim the wouldn't be further away? How is further up O'Connell St and at College Green not further away from the closest Dart station?

And there could easily be more disruption if you're trying to put a station in a busier and more compact location like College Green.

Aard

monument wrote: »

How can you suggest placing stations in locations greater distances away from the Luas and Dart and claim the wouldn't be further away? How is further up O'Connell St and at College Green not further away from the closest Dart station?

The OCB exit near Tara is on Fleet Street. College Green could easily have an exit near there, maybe at most an extra 30 seconds away.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

The planned station boxes at O'Connell Bridge are more entrance boxes, the main section of the station will be mined under the bridge. Quite smaller than a full station box on a fully cut and cover station.

Are you sure about that? I mean, here's the proposed design:

monument

Aard wrote: »

The OCB exit near Tara is on Fleet Street. College Green could easily have an exit near there, maybe at most an extra 30 seconds away.

The south exit at the bridge is around 300m from Tara, while College Green is about 450m. The route along the quays is also more straight forward. The if you can't have transport modes on top of each other the goal should be to have them as close and direct as possible.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I mean, here's the proposed design:

Your image isn't working, but, yes, I'm sure the station will be partly mined, with the entrances only using cut and cover.

Cormac Rabbitt

Jack Noble wrote: »

Since Leo Varadkar made his 'One out of three' statement on Thursday, I've had a good think about this and come to a considered opinion - it MUST be Dart Underground.

....

Regarding Leo's kite re 50 to 100 year lease/100% private sector funding for Metro, maybe the Minister should give Cormac Rabbitt of the Mitsui Dublin Metro and Dargan Project a call. After all, he believes such a system could be self-funding.

Chose Dart Underground, Leo - and then offer Metro North and West, with Green Line integration/extension to Rabbitt to put together a new consortium to finance, build and operate for 40 or 50 years.

That's my thoughts on the matter. I will also post this in the Dart Underground Delayed thread to get the debate going.

Yes. Dargan is available for that call. See the latest on St. Stephen's Green.

FreudianSlippers

oharach wrote: »

(2) Metro North is extended southwest along a new route. Luas BXD remains as a single Luas line. The overlap with Metro North is small (1 stop on the Metro). Examples from other cities: Frankfurt – Konstablerwache – Hauptwache (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in parallel tunnels); Munich – Sendlinger Tor – Fraunhoferstraße (U-Bahn and Tram parallel; Munich – Hauptbahnhof – Karlsplatz (U-Bahn and S-Bahn run in neighbouring tunnels).

I agree and in my mind this is the more logical of the 2 broad solutions.

D.L.R.

Aard wrote: »

The OCB exit near Tara is on Fleet Street. College Green could easily have an exit near there, maybe at most an extra 30 seconds away.

Exactly. If anything it would be a smidge closer.

But I wouldn't call Westmoreland exit ideal anyway. They could have put another exit on D'Olier/Burgh Quay, but they didn't bother.

For such a humongous station, the amount of exits is kind of stingy.

Aard

For the general public, it doesn't really matter as such where the station itself is located, but rather where the entrances are.

Also let's face it, Tara and OCB were never designed as a proper interchange point.

Jack Noble

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

Yes. Dargan is available for that call. See the latest on St. Stephen's Green.

Rather than Dargan, Cormac, would you and your backers/private sector be interested in taking on Metro North and West together withh 100% funding on a long lease/pay back period - thus freeing State/CIE to build DartUnderground?

If the Metro project is so attractive - and you obviously think it is given the work you have put into your own schemes over the last two decades - are there funders out there who will take it on along the lines suggested by Leo Varadkar when he flew the 100-year lease kite last week? Even given Ireland's current risk ratings?

The plans are pretty much written in stone now - no point in changing them at this state. The priority is get them built within the next decade and then extend them in the next decade. Green Line upgrade and Metro to Tallaght through HX/Kimmage/Templeogue are most likey and obviously meet your approval as they are part of Dargan Project.

As regards State/CIE building Dart Undergound, the longer lead-in and construction period offers scope to spread funding out to 2020 if work begins in 2013 if chosen ahead of Metro North. If the cost is around €3bn spread over nine or 10 years then it will be affordable if it is the only major capital rail project carried out by the State in Dublin in that period.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

Your image isn't working, but, yes, I'm sure the station will be partly mined, with the entrances only using cut and cover.

I'm sorry if my image isn't working, but maybe Cathaoirleach's one is - it's basically the same.

But I don't know how you could say in your earlier post that "the main section of the station will be mined under the bridge."

Clearly, from the plans, the main sections of the station will not be the bits under the bridge. And these are not minor structures. Construction of these will cause considerable disruption.

One would certainly have to query the wisdom of building two such structures in order to apparently create just one station.

Neworder79

Sorry I've only recently discovered the Dargan project. Realise it's too late for change of plans but would be interested to know if this system (double deck, single large tunnel with integrated stations in tunnel) was ever considered? I've only briefly looked over the Dargan website proposal but it seems a very elegant and less risky solution (cheaper also if Madrid example is comparable).

Even back in the days of endless cash the CIE scheme seemed very complex and challenging with all those crossover, vent, service tunnels, multi-level dug out stations, systems duplication, not to mention the Stephens green mega junction (endless scope for cost overruns, holdups, unexpected problems and delays).

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But I don't know how you could say in your earlier post that "the main section of the station will be mined under the bridge."

Clearly, from the plans, the main sections of the station will not be the bits under the bridge....

Yes, the platforms and the cross tunnels are tunnelled. Not to be smart, but the station is not two dimensional:



The disruption is a mix of enabling works and the entrance boxes, which are not that wide compared to the tunnelled section of the station. As the image in Sponge Bob's post shows -- the station goes under places the cut and cover entrance boxes can't.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

... And these are not minor structures. Construction of these will cause considerable disruption.

No, not, minor structures, I did not say that.

As for disruption, a quite a lot of planning has gone into limiting the impacts, keeping roads open and public transport moving. An Bord Pleanala puts it well:

The Board acknowledged that the construction phase of the proposed development would result in serious impacts on the Dublin region, in particular adjacent to the metro stop locations in the City Centre, and at Ballymun and Swords, including substantial traffic impacts. However, it was considered that such impacts were an inevitable consequence of the scale and nature of the project and that the applicant had demonstrated that comprehensive mitigation measures would be employed. The Board accepted that the long term benefits of the scheme would outweigh the short term impacts due to construction.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

One would certainly have to query the wisdom of building two such structures in order to apparently create just one station.

What do you mean "to apparently create just one station"? What does that mean? Do you think they are secretly going to built something else down there?

Why are you querying the wisdom of building entrances at both north and south ends of the bridge?

For such an important station, in such a key location, it seems very much so sound. On many criteria -- safety, access, catchment areas, and being closer to other modes (Dart on one end, Luas on the other). Indeed, others are critical of it for not having enough entrances compared to international standards.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

Yes, the platforms and the cross tunnels are tunnelled. Not to be smart, but the station is not two dimensional:



The disruption is a mix of enabling works and the entrance boxes, which are not that wide compared to the tunnelled section of the station. As the image in Sponge Bob's post shows -- the station goes under places the cut and cover entrance boxes can't.

No, of course it's not two-dimensional. But by the same token, what that picture doesn't show is that the two bits in red will be considerably deeper than the one bit in blue. They appear, in fact, to be more than twice as deep. All in all, it's an awful lot of construction for a station which originally emerged as a way of saving money.

monument wrote:

No, not, minor structures, I did not say that.

Forgive me. My interpretation of your post was that you felt the main work would be the mining under the river, and that the construction of the entry boxes would be relatively minor.

monument wrote:

As for disruption, a quite a lot of planning has gone into limiting the impacts, keeping roads open and public transport moving. An Bord Pleanala puts it well:

I'm quite sure that the RPA wish to limit impacts, etc. I'm sure that they would also have done so if the original plan - with stations at O'Connell Street and Trinity, as D.L.R. reminded us - had emerged as the preferred option.

monument wrote:

What do you mean "to apparently create just one station"? What does that mean?

Well, it is an awful lot of construction just to build one stop on the metro. Don'tcha think? Two four level stations, and a whole lot of mining under a river? Mightn't Dublin be better off with two separate stations, say at College Green and directly under the LUAS red line?

monument wrote:

Why are you querying the wisdom of building entrances at both north and south ends of the bridge?

I'm not querying it. If the RPA reckon that building a station under the river is better than what they were originally talking about, and if they reckon that it's going to cut costs over what they were originally talking about, then it is very sensible to build entrances at both ends.

We just have never seen any presentation of how this massive construction at O'Connell Bridge is going to actually be cheaper - or a better deal for Dublin - when it comes to be built, than what they originally proposed during the public consultation.

monument wrote:

For such an important station, in such a key location, it seems very much so sound. On many criteria -- safety, access, catchment areas, and being closer to other modes (Dart on one end, Luas on the other). Indeed, others are critical of it for not having enough entrances compared to international standards.

The location of the stations in the city centre is very important. Have we seen any breakdown from the RPA of how this arrangement, with a colossal station at O'Connell Bridge, beats the original layout of two separate stations, on the factors which are important, like costs, safety, access, catchment areas and being closer to other modes? I might have missed it.

Sponge Bob

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The location of the stations in the city centre is very important. Have we seen any breakdown from the RPA of how this arrangement, with a colossal station at O'Connell Bridge, beats the original layout of two separate stations, on the factors which are important, like costs, safety, access, catchment areas and being closer to other modes? I might have missed it.

I agree about the rather "collossal" station at OCB. As OCB is in my experience about the wettest and windiest place in Dublin with lots of pedestrians scurrying hither and thither there is an advantage to sytematically taking these peds off the quays and sending them underground into a welcome...if rather large and expensive ..shelter.

As other have noted in this thread there appear to be too few entrances/exits to do so effectively meaning they will still scurry across the quays. The place will also become a skanger megamagnet

It would be possible to build the Marlborough street bridge first and to route southbound traffic over it ( including cars and taxis) while the box is built.

monument

Not to be smart here, again, but how many metro stations have you seen?

I've seen stations in Berlin, LA, DC, Paris, London, Budapest, Vienna, Shanghai, Warsaw, Prague etc.... Even taken into account that most of these are much larger than Dublin, the proposed station at O'Connell Bridge does not seem like a big deal. It seems somewhere between modest and middle of the road for a main central station.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, of course it's not two-dimensional. But by the same token, what that picture doesn't show is that the two bits in red will be considerably deeper than the one bit in blue. They appear, in fact, to be more than twice as deep. All in all, it's an awful lot of construction for a station which originally emerged as a way of saving money. ….

Well, it is an awful lot of construction just to build one stop on the metro. Don'tcha think? Two four level stations, and a whole lot of mining under a river? Mightn't Dublin be better off with two separate stations, say at College Green and directly under the LUAS red line?

...with a colossal station at O'Connell Bridge,...

No, I don’t, it seems normal. You’re making a mountain out of nothing.

With any kind of context the entrance boxes aren’t “an awful lot of construction”. The contents of these cut and cover boxes are normal – ticket halls, escalators, elevators, vents, services etc. It really does not seem like a “colossal” station, it’s small compared to some far more minor stations on some of the metros mentioned at the top of the post.

Multi-level entrances are quite normal in underground -- and even in elevated -- metro stations.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm quite sure that the RPA wish to limit impacts, etc. I'm sure that they would also have done so if the original plan - with stations at O'Connell Street and Trinity, as D.L.R. reminded us - had emerged as the preferred option.

One of the stations is at O'Connell Street, you’ve yet to demonstrate how a station at College Green / Trinity would limit impacts.

It seems like two stations would increases impacts.

A station as you’re suggestion “directly under” the Luas line would cause lots of needless disruptions. And any closer to the Spire would be worse again.

Blocking up the areas around College Green would also most likely increase, not decrease, impacts.

Cormac Rabbitt

There is another way - like a single tunnel ... see pages 10 & 11

Cormac Rabbitt

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

There is another way - like a single tunnel ... see pages 10 & 11

Another image of what could be

dynamick

A lot of work went into that!
One 12m diameter tunnel produces 50% higher volume of spoil of 2X7m tunnels

The RSC now allows two trains in one tunnel with a division.

OurLadyofKnock

This is not going to be built! Wake up lads.

FreudianSlippers

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

This is not going to be built! Wake up lads.

Then what do we do, spend no money? Live another repeat of the 80s and live 2 decades in recession?

If they don't build this project or DU my faith in this system is totally lost. We'll be in the dark ages while everyone else is recovered.

dubhthach

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

This is not going to be built! Wake up lads.

Do you mean Metro North in general or specifically the larger tunnel with "stacking of lines"?

Amtmann

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

This is not going to be built! Wake up lads.

Perhaps you haven't realised that this thread is about more than if it will be built or not. A single, baiting sentence like the one you've posted above constitutes trolling.

OurLadyofKnock

dubhthach wrote: »

Do you mean Metro North in general or specifically the larger tunnel with "stacking of lines"?

The entire project Metro North the works dead in the water. Wish it wasn't so but you can smell the flies already whizzing around.

OurLadyofKnock

Tremelo wrote: »

Perhaps you haven't realised that this thread is about more than if it will be built or not. A single, baiting sentence like the one you've posted above constitutes trolling.

It is not trolling it is called reality. Something that the Irish go to huge lenghts in order not to confont. So what if it is about more than if it will be built or not. At this stage talking about technical aspects of the Metro North is akin to a legless person planning on how to win the Olympic 1500 meters final.

Your Bolded Text won't change that I am sorry to say.

[MOD]BANNED FOR 2 WEEKS [/MOD]

Zebra3

I assume one of the benefits going for the OCB station is that it won't have a load of historical buildings over it.

(And yes, I'm aware that there will be a river above it).

dubhthach

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

It is not trolling it is called reality. Something that the Irish go to huge lenghts in order not to confont. So what if it is about more than if it will be built or not. At this stage talking about technical aspects of the Metro North is akin to a legless person planning on how to win the Olympic 1500 meters final.

Your Bolded Text won't change that I am sorry to say.

Mod!
Banned for two weeks - challenging mod in thread (after receiving warning), trolling and disruptive posting.

DWCommuter

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Then what do we do, spend no money? Live another repeat of the 80s and live 2 decades in recession?

If they don't build this project or DU my faith in this system is totally lost. We'll be in the dark ages while everyone else is recovered.

What money? By the way you don't choose to live in recession. Its dictated by bigger forces. Furthermore it is very likely that we could be 2 decades in recession. Therefore you should prepare yourself for that loss of faith in the system. I grew up in the 70s and 80s so I know all about losing faith.

DWCommuter

Tremelo wrote: »

Perhaps you haven't realised that this thread is about more than if it will be built or not. A single, baiting sentence like the one you've posted above constitutes trolling.

In fairness Tremelo, I've often made the same remarks on this thread. I'm not back seat modding, but I have to admit that when I read recent posts, I was a little taken aback, by the sudden onset of technical discussion for a project that is extremely unlikely to be built in the near future. When one considers how close it was to construction with expectations very high, even I feel that its recent negative sounding publicity hardly warrants a return to discussing its technical aspects. Of course I'm not trying to say that it shouldn't be discussed, but there are those of us who will express surprise.

Personally I find it a bit bizzare and I'd like to think I could express that without it being construed as trolling.