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

L1011

Nice try to attempt to force your hobby horse back in to this thread. Nobody will fall for it.

strassenwo!f

Rome is indeed full of hills, Monument, and there are plenty of tunnels in the city under the hills., but the underpasses I'm talking about are the ones at the bottom of the river valley, i.e., not under the hills but beside the river.

The RPA's proposal for O'Connell Bridge was colossal: two 4-level stations either side of the river, with platforms mined out under the river to link them. Either of those stations would have been huge anywhere on their proposed network, and together they amounted to a monstrosity which is, thankfully, unlikely to be built.

What I am suggesting, with the metro going over the river, should involve no more than two two-level stations either side of the river: O'Connell Street and somewhere on the southside, to accomodate a ticket office/shops level and a platform level.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm quite busy now, but go to Wikipedia, look for Rome, transport, Metro line A. You'll see a nice picture of a train crossing the river Tiber, having left an underground station and about to go into an underground station.

You really don't need me to explain the 'O'Connell Bridge, mammoth station' bit at this stage, do you?

You'd time to post that twice it's not for us to make yourself clear . Owe you meant the proposed station I didn't get that

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Rome is indeed full of hills, Monument, and there are plenty of tunnels in the city under the hills., but the underpasses I'm talking about are the ones at the bottom of the river valley, i.e., not under the hills but beside the river.

The RPA's proposal for O'Connell Bridge was colossal: two 4-level stations either side of the river, with platforms mined out under the river to link them. Either of those stations would have been huge anywhere on their proposed network, and together they amounted to a monstrosity which is, thankfully, unlikely to be built.

What I am suggesting, with the metro going over the river, should involve no more than two two-level stations either side of the river: O'Connell Street and somewhere on the southside, to accomodate a ticket office/shops level and a platform level.

How on earth is what was planned at O'Connell Bridge "colossal"? It's nearly conservative to the Nørreport station on the Copenhagen Metro and other stations like it on different cities' systems.

Re Rome, it looks like parts of Via Cesare Beccaria are at or below the level of the underpass beside the riverbank.

You're idea of surfacing bore tunnels to avoid an underground station in a really busy place is quite frankly bonkers -- I was trying to be nice about it, but it actually makes your other daft ideas look reasonable. You're comparing a cut and cover section of one metro with a bore tunnel section of another. It's unreal what you're suggesting all just to support your other idea of a College Green station.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

You're idea of surfacing bore tunnels to avoid an underground station in a really busy place is quite frankly bonkers -- I was trying to be nice about it, but it actually makes your other daft ideas look reasonable. You're comparing a cut and cover section of one metro with a bore tunnel section of another. It's unreal what you're suggesting all just to support your other idea of a College Green station.

Monument, if anything, I would think the gradients involved on either side of the river in the scenario suggested above would render it very difficult - perhaps effectively impossible - to have a station at College Green (particularly if a mezzanine level is required).

It is quite frankly ludicrous for you and the poster L1011 to write that my contribution above is in support of any other stances I may have on Dublin's underground plans.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Monument, if anything, I would think the gradients involved on either side of the river in the scenario suggested above would render it very difficult - perhaps effectively impossible - to have a station at College Green (particularly if a mezzanine level is required).

It is quite frankly ludicrous for you and the poster L1011 to write that my contribution above is in support of any other stances I may have on Dublin's underground plans.

All you are trying to do is rewrite/design things and considering the Government position, off you go! Loads more are doing it on other threads in relation to luas, Navan, DU etc. etc. Carry on. You and your like have been justified by Government policy, but you are merely cohorting with inertia.

We are 1 year beyond where we could have been and your crayons and other crayons just support the inevitable. I have no doubt that anything you suggest will be torn to shreds in the future by bigger people than boardsies....and we still won't have built anything.

iopener

I was on the ballymun road yesterday, just at the junction with Collins avenue there was 5/6 global rail services vans and a Spanish registered van with similar translated name on the side. They were there for atleast 3 hours. Probably to do with surveying of the route

cgcsb

iopener wrote: »

I was on the ballymun road yesterday, just at the junction with Collins avenue there was 5/6 global rail services vans and a Spanish registered van with similar translated name on the side. They were there for atleast 3 hours. Probably to do with surveying of the route

I somehow doubt it. DB have a factory near there probably related to that

LeinsterDub

cgcsb wrote: »

I somehow doubt it. DB have a factory near there probably related to that

Factory ? You mean depot?

cgcsb

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Factory ? You mean depot?

No I mean their big logistics warehousey thing

http://www.dbschenker.ie/log-ie-en/start/

LeinsterDub

iopener wrote: »

I was on the ballymun road yesterday, just at the junction with Collins avenue there was 5/6 global rail services vans and a Spanish registered van with similar translated name on the side. They were there for atleast 3 hours. Probably to do with surveying of the route

They've had to stop working pending an archaeological dig, they've found the treasure trove of ancient documents early indications shows they are entitled "Transport 21" , "Dublin 2020" and a "Platform for change" among others

LeinsterDub

cgcsb wrote: »

No I mean their big logistics warehousey thing

http://www.dbschenker.ie/log-ie-en/start/

I assumed DB meant Dublin Bus

iopener

Sorry I don't follow you, Dublin bus or dbschenker what's the connection with global rail services lads on the side of the ballymun road.

strassenwo!f

Monument, I didn't have time to address this point the other day, but I would like to do so now:

monument wrote: »

How on earth is what was planned at O'Connell Bridge "colossal"? It's nearly conservative to the Nørreport station on the Copenhagen Metro and other stations like it on different cities' systems.

It's all about context, and O'Connell Bridge would indeed not be 'colossal' in comparison to the Copenhagen station you mention, or countless others on countless other urban rail systems, if it were in the same context.

But, as wikipedia says, '(Nørreport) serves lines M1 and M2 of the Metro, most S-train lines (that's 6 S-train lines), regional trains to Helsingør, intercity trains to Esbjerg and international trains to Malmö and Gothenburg, Sweden, and trains to other places, but not express trains.'

The bold bit was added by me, to make it clearer for readers. Nørreport is Denmark's busiest station.

Nørreport in Copenhagen serves many lines, going to many places, and is thus very big. The O'Connell Bridge idea would have served just one 90 metre metro line, yet was around 300 metres end to end, and there were no plans for it ever to be used as a proper interchange station, like Nørreport is.

In the context of what it was actually to do, the O'Connell Bridge idea was 'colossal', and a total absurdity.

L1011

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Monument, I didn't have time to address this point the other day, but I would like to do so now:



It's all about context, and O'Connell Bridge would indeed not be 'colossal' in comparison to the Copenhagen station you mention, or countless others on countless other urban rail systems, if it were in the same context.

But, as wikipedia says, '(Nørreport) serves lines M1 and M2 of the Metro, most S-train lines (that's 6 S-train lines), regional trains to Helsingør, intercity trains to Esbjerg and international trains to Malmö and Gothenburg, Sweden, and trains to other places, but not express trains.'

The bold bit was added by me, to make it clearer for readers. Nørreport is Denmark's busiest station.

Nørreport in Copenhagen serves many lines, going to many places, and is thus very big. The O'Connell Bridge idea would have served just one 90 metre metro line, yet was around 300 metres end to end, and there were no plans for it ever to be used as a proper interchange station, like Nørreport is.

In the context of what it was actually to do, the O'Connell Bridge idea was 'colossal', and a total absurdity.

The physical number of *platforms* in Norreport is not particularly large, though. Most operate over the same tracks. The station structure is large due to the multiple entrances, much like the OCB station plan.

And the old station, built to a more conservative space usage, was absolutely disgusting.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It's all about context, and O'Connell Bridge would indeed not be 'colossal' in comparison to the Copenhagen station you mention, or countless others on countless other urban rail systems, if it were in the same context.

But, as wikipedia says, '(Nørreport) serves lines M1 and M2 of the Metro, most S-train lines (that's 6 S-train lines), regional trains to Helsingør, intercity trains to Esbjerg and international trains to Malmö and Gothenburg, Sweden, and trains to other places, but not express trains.'

The bold bit was added by me, to make it clearer for readers. Nørreport is Denmark's busiest station.

Only because Copenhagen Central Station doesn't have a metro stop. I was, in any case, only referring to the Nørreport metro stop -- not the rest of the interchange (which includes buses).

This is just the metro stop:




VIA: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwcasellini/3382929845/sizes/l/in/photostream/

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Nørreport in Copenhagen serves many lines, going to many places, and is thus very big. The O'Connell Bridge idea would have served just one 90 metre metro line, yet was around 300 metres end to end,

Your view on this is ridiculous. Even besides when the 300m figure is from, have you never seen an underground stop where the entrance tunnels extend beyond the sttaion platforms? Exactly what metro or other underground systems have you used?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

and there were no plans for it ever to be used as a proper interchange station, like Nørreport is.

In the context of what it was actually to do, the O'Connell Bridge idea was 'colossal', and a total absurdity.

Yes, because within around 300m or less of the O'Connell Bridge metro portals you have two modern light rail lines, a Dart and Commuter station, and a ton of bus stops serving most bus routes in the city.

strassenwo!f

Monument, I don't think we're advancing the thread very much by discussion of an earlier proposal which seems - based on recent posts on this thread - to have been superseded by an idea for an O'Connell Street station.

To briefly answer your questions:

(i) the 300 metre figure is based on diagrams produced by the RPA to illustrate their plan for O'Connell Bridge - these are readily available and appeared earlier on this thread;

(ii) I can't put an exact figure on the number of underground systems I have used, and it's certainly paltry compared to a well-travelled person like you - but it still includes everything in Germany (bar Hamburg), London (extensively) and occasional use in other European cities (including Copenhagen); and

(iii) the overground DART and tram lines 'within 300 metres' of the RPA's O'Connell Bridge proposal do not constitute part of the cost of bringing that proposal to fruition.

Van.Bosch

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Monument, I don't think we're advancing the thread very much by discussion of an earlier proposal which seems.

I don't think you've ever advanced any thread.

maninasia

It's amazing how much discussion vaporware can generate .

strassenwo!f

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I don't think you've ever advanced any thread.

Surely that's a bit harsh.

strassenwo!f

L1011 wrote: »

The physical number of *platforms* in Norreport is not particularly large, though. Most operate over the same tracks. The station structure is large due to the multiple entrances, much like the OCB station plan.

L1011, in a matter of minutes it should be possible to namecheck dozens of underground stations which are larger than the proposed O'Connell Bridge station. Can you give us one station of comparable size which serves just a single metro line?

lucernarian

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I don't think you've ever advanced any thread.

That's hardly a shining example of contributing to a thread either...

In the context of what is a comparatively expensive station and with some opposition to Metro North as a whole, what's wrong with a discussion on whether it should be built?

Grandeeod

lucernarian wrote: »

That's hardly a shining example of contributing to a thread either...

In the context of what is a comparatively expensive station and with some opposition to Metro North as a whole, what's wrong with a discussion on whether it should be built?

There's no discussion on whether it will be built, because it won't be built.

But I'd like to see it built. Imagine the difference to North side Dublin and I mean the non coastal part of North side Dublin, that central spine through thousands of people and an airport!:eek:

marno21

Lads, on topic please.

Metro North talk and Metro North talk only. No need for the other stuff.

strassenwo!f

Grandeeod wrote: »

There's no discussion on whether it will be built, because it won't be built.

But I'd like to see it built. Imagine the difference to North side Dublin and I mean the non coastal part of North side Dublin, that central spine through thousands of people and an airport!:eek:

Indeed!

And yet the transport lobby group Platform11 argued against the metro for so long.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Indeed!

And yet the transport lobby group Platform11 argued against the metro for so long.

Wrong.

They argued about connectivity with the Maynooth line. Get your facts right.

The O'Reilly report is the first example of where Platform 11 pointed out Glasnevin junction as a point of interchange at a time when the original MN route was going under/close to it and the old Smurfit factory with no interchange. The route subsequently moved east and interchanged with the Maynooth line in Drumcondra station area.

strassenwo!f

Well that's obviously how you remember it.

But the first item in my google search on this issue throws up this post, in which the communications officer of P11 writes with apparent satisfaction that P11 had 'already taken the RPA's Airport Metro out of the equation (thanks to Irish Times supporting our campaign)...'

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well that's obviously how you remember it.

But the first item in my google search on this issue throws up this post, in which the communications officer of P11 writes with apparent satisfaction that P11 had 'already taken the RPA's Airport Metro out of the equation (thanks to Irish Times supporting our campaign)...'

No its not how I remember it. Its fact.

Your evidence is based on a post on boards that you have decided to take out of context.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

L1011, in a matter of minutes it should be possible to namecheck dozens of underground stations which are larger than the proposed O'Connell Bridge station. Can you give us one station of comparable size which serves just a single metro line?

There isn't just a single metro line, it's effectively an interchange location with two tram lines, a Dart and Commuter station, and a ton of city buses, and also regional and intercity buses stopping around 300 metres or less of the planned O'Connell Bridge station exits.

You can talk down buses or trams all you like but buses will remain a large percentage of Dublin's public transport mix for some time to come, and the extension of the green line will extend the reach and connectivity of the Luas lines, which already carry seriously impressive numbers of passengers for a surface light rail line with at grade crossings and some mixed street running.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Monument, I don't think we're advancing the thread very much by discussion of an earlier proposal which seems - based on recent posts on this thread - to have been superseded by an idea for an O'Connell Street station.

• Metro North -- still has a valid railway order.
• New Metro North -- has no planning permission of any kind.

• Metro North -- Luas Cross City built to accommodate this by order of ABP.
• New Metro North -- Luas Cross City NOT built to accommodate this.

The fact is ABP can reject New Metro North in part or full. They could for example reject a stop, just like they rejected a half of a stop with Luas Cross City. And then they let the TII / the NTA re-apply for a station in a different location, such as O'Connell Bridge.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

(i) the 300 metre figure is based on diagrams produced by the RPA to illustrate their plan for O'Connell Bridge - these are readily available and appeared earlier on this thread;

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, link to the document which says 300m or stop making that bs claim.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

(ii) I can't put an exact figure on the number of underground systems I have used, and it's certainly paltry compared to a well-travelled person like you - but it still includes everything in Germany (bar Hamburg), London (extensively) and occasional use in other European cities (including Copenhagen);

Maybe you're looking at this the wrong with with your experience of mostly of London (mostly historic, crapped stations) and maybe too many utilitarian stations in Germany?

More modern metro stations (even with serving single lines) are built with larger spaces open spaces and the O'Connell Bridge station is overall comparable to many metro systems I've seen in person or photographed.

And the exits on each side of the river are comparable to stations with two exits on historic or more modern metro stops at key locations.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

(iii) the overground DART and tram lines 'within 300 metres' of the RPA's O'Connell Bridge proposal do not constitute part of the cost of bringing that proposal to fruition.

Yes, they and other locations / trip generators on both sides of the river have everything to do with why two station exits are provided for.

strassenwo!f

Monument, I will hopefully address your other points in the next few days, but the one below has to be answered right away.

monument wrote: »

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, link to the document which says 300m or stop making that bs claim.

This is an image produced by the RPA to show their plans for O'Connell Bridge.

As you can see, it shows the proposed station stretching all the way from Fleet Street on the southside to Abbey Street on the northside. 300 metres. No bs claim.