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

Zebra3

Idbatterim wrote: »

Keeping dunville open was done to “protect” a handful, with a farce of an outcome. Yet demolishing seventy apartments and they are all for doing the “ right thing for the project” it’s laughable.

Good luck to those residents even finding somewhere else. WhAt about those there that are paying well below market rent ?

But Dunville residents are well to do.

The People That Count.

marno21

NTA/TII say 4,000 jobs will be created during Metrolink construction

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/the-construction-phase-of-metrolink-will-create-4000-jobs-according-to-the-nta-37971412.html

madbeanman

marno21 wrote: »

NTA/TII say 4,000 jobs will be created during Metrolink construction

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/the-construction-phase-of-metrolink-will-create-4000-jobs-according-to-the-nta-37971412.html

In before “But where will they live?”.

I guess it is actually a serious problem though.

L1011

Plenty of the tunnellers will likely be from NW Donegal and used to living in bunk beds in overloaded houses and flying home each week as plenty did from Crossrail and the Northern line extension in London as well as everything before.

Sam Russell

Today there is public consultation.

Hilton Hotel, Charlemont Place, D02 A893, Monday 8 April 2pm-8pm

CatInABox

The full report is up now apparently.

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1115189565793492994

CatInABox

There's a few new interesting things in the appendices, including confirmation that the sewer along the canal made the tie in at Charlemont impossible, necessitating the tie in moving south, which in turn made the length of the Luas disruption significantly longer. I think we can all stop complaining about Dunville Avenue as the cause of the Green Line upgrade being scrapped now.

The lowered tunnel and rail alignment to pass under the sewer also mean that the subsequent southern tie-in envisaged to the LUAS Green Line cannot now be undertaken in the same way as envisaged in the EPR study, as the gradients to achieve the same tie-in location as proposed at Ranelagh would be too steep. Therefore, further tunneling southwards to provide potential for a future tie-in nearer Beechwood will be required

CatInABox

The Glasnevin station is also interesting. I'm inferring from what's in the report, but it looks like they're going to do the works on the Irish Rail lines to the west of the station first, allowing trains to change from one line to the other. Then they'll close the Maynooth line, with all trains rerouted onto the other track, while the regrading is done. Once that's done, they'll close the other track, and all trains will then use the Maynooth line, which will stay open during the construction of the station box.

It's going to avoid a lot of commuter misery, or at least minimise it.

Thrashssacre

CatInABox wrote: »

The Glasnevin station is also interesting. I'm inferring from what's in the report, but it looks like they're going to do the works on the Irish Rail lines to the west of the station first, allowing trains to change from one line to the other. Then they'll close the Maynooth line, with all trains rerouted onto the other track, while the regrading is done. Once that's done, they'll close the other track, and all trains will then use the Maynooth line, which will stay open during the construction of the station box.

It's going to avoid a lot of commuter misery, or at least minimise it.

Yeah that’s been a worry of mine for a while, I was dreading the peak time maynooth line commuters changing to busses for the time the building would have taken. Nice to see a work around has been made possible.

CatInABox

Thrashssacre wrote: »

Yeah that’s been a worry of mine for a while, I was dreading the peak time maynooth line commuters changing to busses for the time the building would have taken. Nice to see a work around has been made possible.

Not sure what's involved in the works west of the station yet, but hopefully it's limited to weekend closures or similar.

L1011

Appendix M there really does make the College Gate residents request to have an "independent report" pointless.

jd

L1011 wrote: »

Appendix M there really does make the College Gate residents request to have an "independent report" pointless.

I see the radius of the tunnel is 9.2 meters rather than 10.3. Does anyone have a reference for minimum turning radii of TBMS of various diameters?

Sam Russell

How long is a TBM that they are likely to use?

How difficult is it to extract it at the proposed end of the tunnel? Does it require a lot of space?

Dats me

Appendix F: Train Capacity on page 164 makes it clear that they're not considering platform extensions to 90m. Increased capacity will be achieved by "reducing the comfort level" which seems pretty grim. I'd love a Freedom of Information request to see if they've assessed the feasibility of platform extensions with the station boxes they're using. Seems ridiculous to only be planning for 2057, 30 years after opening. People will still have to get around in 2060, and look at what happened with the demand projections with the Luas!

I can't make it to the public consultations this week. If anyone is going to the Hilton Charlemont today, could you ask them about possible extensions to 90m trains? (I know they're not planning it but have they left 2057 people the option?).

MetroLinker

L1011 wrote: »

Appendix M there really does make the College Gate residents request to have an "independent report" pointless.

Bit frustrating that they have made changes to the included appendix M compared to the appendix that was individually available last week. I've only spotted that major correction that removes the note that their own proposal was "not recommended" but haven't had a chance to go through the rest of the report.


They must have had a good laugh when they were wrote the following conclusion (bold text by me):

We conclude that Option 2 and Option 4 have more constraints and risk for their construction when compared to Option 0, without compensating benefits, and therefore Option 0 is the proposed option to be progressed as part of the Preferred Route.

Obviously, Option 4 has compensating benefits regarding the retention of Markievicz Leisure and College Gate.

Phil.x

SF pushing for Metrolink west since the south is abolished.

Push harder I say.

salmocab

Phil.x wrote: »

SF pushing for Metrolink west since the south is abolished.

Push harder I say.

It won’t be happening as they well know but it will probably get them votes in the locals and the real election when it happens.

AAAAAAAAA

L1011 wrote: »

Appendix M there really does make the College Gate residents request to have an "independent report" pointless.

I would really have loved if one of the options in Appendix M was to demolish the Irish Times building

AAAAAAAAA

CatInABox wrote: »

There's a few new interesting things in the appendices, including confirmation that the sewer along the canal made the tie in at Charlemont impossible, necessitating the tie in moving south, which in turn made the length of the Luas disruption significantly longer. I think we can all stop complaining about Dunville Avenue as the cause of the Green Line upgrade being scrapped now.

Eyeballing it on google maps, I am of the opinion that you could surface the TBM at the NW corner of the area bounded by the existing green line, Adelaide Road, Harcourt Terrace and Charlemont Place, make up the height to elevate the new line over Charlemont Place within that area (while maintaining track radius), and connect into the original tie in point. If you were really stuck, you could conceivably drop Charlemont Place by a meter

I don't think that the tunnel portal *has to* go South

L1011

AAAAAAAAA wrote: »

I would really have loved if one of the options in Appendix M was to demolish the Irish Times building

Use its original name (Liffey House) and see how long it takes anyone to notice :pac:

Sam Russell

Dats me wrote: »

Appendix F: Train Capacity on page 164 makes it clear that they're not considering platform extensions to 90m. Increased capacity will be achieved by "reducing the comfort level" which seems pretty grim. I'd love a Freedom of Information request to see if they've assessed the feasibility of platform extensions with the station boxes they're using. Seems ridiculous to only be planning for 2057, 30 years after opening. People will still have to get around in 2060, and look at what happened with the demand projections with the Luas!

I can't make it to the public consultations this week. If anyone is going to the Hilton Charlemont today, could you ask them about possible extensions to 90m trains? (I know they're not planning it but have they left 2057 people the option?).

I did ask about the platforms and was told - No, they considered it unnecessary as the high floor and driverless with high frequency will give sufficient capacity.

Qrt

So station boxes are only being build to 60m? Is that what I’m taking from all this? Or are the trains only going to be 60m?

Because if so, jaysus.

Grandeeod

Qrt wrote: »

So station boxes are only being build to 60m? Is that what I’m taking from all this? Or are the trains only going to be 60m?

Because if so, jaysus.

So far it looks like that. I stand to be corrected. If so, my great grand kids will be taking up the fight. Funnily enough, if they are scaling it down this much it might actually be built and then Ireland can enter a new age of fixing our Metro in 2060.

Progress.:D

Alvin Holler

CatInABox wrote: »

The Glasnevin station is also interesting. I'm inferring from what's in the report, but it looks like they're going to do the works on the Irish Rail lines to the west of the station first, allowing trains to change from one line to the other. Then they'll close the Maynooth line, with all trains rerouted onto the other track, while the regrading is done. Once that's done, they'll close the other track, and all trains will then use the Maynooth line, which will stay open during the construction of the station box.

It's going to avoid a lot of commuter misery, or at least minimise it.

I was wondering how they were going to this. Looks like there will be considerably less work on the Maynooth line as the metro station is not constructed underneath it.

I'd say that there won't be any trains running through drumcondra station for a long enough period if this is the case.

Dats me

Sam Russell wrote: »

I did ask about the platforms and was told - No, they considered it unnecessary as the high floor and driverless with high frequency will give sufficient capacity.

Thank you very much for asking, Sam. Anything else interesting?


Isn't it ridiculous that there's only a 30 year timeline for a Metro project? Is it something to do with the public spending code?


In fairness one thing that struck me from the docs was that they had capacity figures for 75 second headway. Perhaps we'll have fancy new signalling technology that we could install in 2058 to increase to 60 trains per hour - same thing as going from 60 to 90m trains

antoinolachtnai

Dats me wrote: »

Thank you very much for asking, Sam. Anything else interesting?


Isn't it ridiculous that there's only a 30 year timeline for a Metro project? Is it something to do with the public spending code?


In fairness one thing that struck me from the docs was that they had capacity figures for 75 second headway. Perhaps we'll have fancy new signalling technology that we could install in 2058 to increase to 60 trains per hour - same thing as going from 60 to 90m trains

In Singapore they seem to be running trains at 60 second intervals (which is less than 60 seconds headway). The problem with this appears to be that the wear-and-tear on both the tracks and the trains is animal. The metal just wears out twice as fast and you need to find time to repair it. (Of course longer trains will result in greater wear on the tracks too, but the extra rolling stock means the impact on the trains is a bit more spread out.)

salmocab

It would seem ludicrous to not leave stations in such a way that they could easily be expanded in the future, we’re really only talking 15 mts each end of the station box. It seems stupid and short sighted so I’d imagine that’s the plan.

antoinolachtnai

salmocab wrote: »

It would seem ludicrous to not leave stations in such a way that they could easily be expanded in the future, we’re really only talking 15 mts each end of the station box. It seems stupid and short sighted so I’d imagine that’s the plan.

Well you also need to leave space for more escalators and lifts. Making the site 50 percent longer is going to have expensive consequences whatever way you dice it. I think the decision is ultimately going to hinge on whether you’ll later put spurs on the two arms of the line or not.

Sam Russell

Dats me wrote: »

Thank you very much for asking, Sam. Anything else interesting?


Isn't it ridiculous that there's only a 30 year timeline for a Metro project? Is it something to do with the public spending code?


In fairness one thing that struck me from the docs was that they had capacity figures for 75 second headway. Perhaps we'll have fancy new signalling technology that we could install in 2058 to increase to 60 trains per hour - same thing as going from 60 to 90m trains

The trains are 63 metres long, high floor and automatic. The station boxes are 120 metres so I would think extension of platform to 90 metes would be possible (but I was not told that).

Hope that helps.

salmocab

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well you also need to leave space for more escalators and lifts. Making the site 50 percent longer is going to have expensive consequences whatever way you dice it. I think the decision is ultimately going to hinge on whether you’ll later put spurs on the two arms of the line or not.

I don’t think they need to do too much of the work but they should leave it that it can be done in the future without having to close the lines.