Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Dublin Metrolink - alternative routes

13638404142

Comments



  • So now that there's a good chance the green party might get into government (judging by social media and political commentary) is there a chance they could have some effect on metrolink?
    Could they speed up the process? Scrap it all together?
    Extend it?
    Interesting considering what eamon Ryan's position on the project has been.




  • tom1ie wrote: »
    So now that there's a good chance the green party might get into government (judging by social media and political commentary) is there a chance they could have some effect on metrolink?
    Could they speed up the process? Scrap it all together?
    Extend it?
    Interesting considering what eamon Ryan's position on the project has been.

    If someone took the crayons off Eamonn Ryan, then I'd be optimistic. I'd hope that they'd get on with the projects that are going to be shovel ready within the next year or so, because if they don't, they should just turn in any green credentials that they have.




  • CatInABox wrote: »
    If someone took the crayons off Eamonn Ryan, then I'd be optimistic. I'd hope that they'd get on with the projects that are going to be shovel ready within the next year or so, because if they don't, they should just turn in any green credentials that they have.

    Agreed, but maybe they can secure substantially more money towards PT? Surely thatd be a good thing.




  • tom1ie wrote: »
    Agreed, but maybe they can secure substantially more money towards PT? Surely thatd be a good thing.

    Oh yes, more money towards PT would be great, but I'd worry that they'd spunk it out all over the place rather than focus on the ones that'd make the most difference first.

    I find it to be an issue even with what they actually talk about, like how they had their "green wave", and days later Eamonn Ryan was talking about how rural towns in Ireland should give up their cars and do car pooling. I mean, yeah, I see his point, but Christ, focus on the major issues first, and then move on to other smaller issues afterwards.

    I'm also aware that the media took what could have been an aside and ran with it rather than focusing on the main point he was making, but seriously, there's no need to talk about small towns in Ireland while our major cities are by far the biggest problems.




  • Post moved from another thread.
    Mod


    I am replying to this post here because it is on this thread, even though there are aspects of my reply which I would normally reserve for the "Alternative Routes" thread.
    Last Stop wrote: »
    Any extension now would add years to the design and billions to the price

    This is surely not so. A metrolink route to Rathmines, perhaps to an initial terminus of the metrolink around the Church, and temporarily using the rugby pitch of St. Mary's College on Rathmines Road, would be (by my rough reckoning) about 300 metres longer than the proposed route to Charlemont with the inevitable bits beyond that. How would that add 'years' to the design and 'billions' to the price?

    The vast majority of the design and the cost goes into the Swords - Saint Stephen's Green bit, and after that it's really just a question of designing a little bit towards the South-East, or maybe towards the South-Central/West. It shouldn't be a major issue.
    Last Stop wrote: »
    The metrolink extension is not pointless in the interim... it offers a direct interchange point between metro and Luas.
    The journey time between Charlemont and O’Connell on a segregated metro with 2 stops will be significantly faster than an on street tram with 4 stops.

    There is already a LUAS line linking Cherrywood/Sandyford with O'Connell Street. With the interchange, you'd shave perhap 6-8 minutes off the journey (The journey planner on the LUAS website is pretty poor, so it's hard to calculate percentage reductions) but I estimate that you might reduce journey times on those Cherrywood/Sandyford - O'Connell Street journeys by up to around 15% with the metro/LUAS interchange.

    If you were to eventually reach Firhouse/Knocklyon with the metro - and building an initial phase to Rathmines would be part of that - it seems pretty clear that you would reduce a Firhouse - O'Connell Street journey by around 60-70% (it is, apparently, considerably more than an hour now, by bus, at peak times, but should be about 20 minutes or so by metro).
    Last Stop wrote: »
    Not simple enough. The curves and slope from Charlemont make this difficult if not impossible.

    The slope from Charlemont Bridge has been able to handle LUAS trams for several years now, so I don't think that's an issue. And access to Adelaide Road shouldn't be a problem if you wanted to build a line towards Baggot Street, though I do think it might be necessary to demolish that building at the corner of Peter Place and Adelaide Road.
    Last Stop wrote: »
    Add in the lack of demand for such an odd spur, the confusion with more spurs off the green line and the requirement to upgrade sections of the green line.

    What is odd about it? Many many cities have two or more tram lines feeding into one. And do you think there'd really be a lack of demand to get to and from Baggot Street Bridge (or perhaps beyond, places like Grand Canal Dock) at peak time?

    I am really puzzled by your statement about 'confusion with more spurs off the Green Line'. I can't think of any existing spurs off the Green Line, so adding one spur should be fine. In general, people nowadays are able to look at a network map and figure out the best way to get themselves to work and to their home.

    There should also be no need to upgrade any sections of the Green Line for the increased throughput which a Baggot Street spur would require.
    Last Stop wrote: »
    You have been told time and time again that you are wrong about the densities. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it right. Please stop this nonsense.

    I am not wrong about the densities. You quite rightly pointed out that there is on part of 'Rathfarnham' which lies North of the Dodder, in the Dublin City Council area, and is indeed adjacent to the LUAS; this has an area of 1.23 sq. km, a population of 4,683, and a population density of 3,797 per sq.km.

    For some of the other suburbs at a distance from the LUAS, the densities are:

    Rathfarnham (SCD): population 17478. 4,239 people per sq.km;
    Terenure: population 17468, 4,391 people per sq.km;
    Firhouse (incl. Knocklyon) population 23,949, 3,753 people per sq.km.

    For comparison, Dundrum: total population 23,653, 3,349 per sq.km.

    In other words, Dundrum has a population density which is lower than all of those, indeed well over 1,000 people per sq.km. lower than Terenure, and almost 900 people per sq.km lower than Rathfarnham (South County Dublin). I don't have the space here, but other suburbs along the Green line tell pretty much the same story.

    And, if anyone needs to be reminded, Dundrum already has a railway line delivering people rapidly into and out of the city.

    In my opinion the sensible thing to do, on the Southside, would be to build towards Rathmines in the years to 2027, extend that to Firhouse under the next funding round to around 2032, then use the years to about 2040 to build a spur off that line (I would favour Harold's Cross....Walkinstown to hoover up loads of bus passengers from many areas).

    Building it to Charlemont, and then sitting around for 20 odd years, with no other noticeable rail development on the Southside makes no sense to me.


  • Advertisement


  • Don’t know why I keep replying because you refuse to listen to the points raised.

    Post moved from another thread.
    Mod


    I am replying to this post here because it is on this thread, even though there are aspects of my reply which I would normally reserve for the "Alternative Routes" thread.

    This is surely not so. A metrolink route to Rathmines, perhaps to an initial terminus of the metrolink around the Church, and temporarily using the rugby pitch of St. Mary's College on Rathmines Road, would be (by my rough reckoning) about 300 metres longer than the proposed route to Charlemont with the inevitable bits beyond that. How would that add 'years' to the design and 'billions' to the price?

    The vast majority of the design and the cost goes into the Swords - Saint Stephen's Green bit, and after that it's really just a question of designing a little bit towards the South-East, or maybe towards the South-Central/West. It shouldn't be a major issue.

    1. Tunnelling costs are extremely high
    2. The route between Swords and Charlemont is at an advanced stage of the design
    3. The EIAR surveys are ongoing and some have been complete. Seasonal surveys would have to be done meaning adding at least 1 year to the current programme
    4. You’re talking about adding an extra station in a confined site which is a complex design and cost.
    There is already a LUAS line linking Cherrywood/Sandyford with O'Connell Street. With the interchange, you'd shave perhap 6-8 minutes off the journey (The journey planner on the LUAS website is pretty poor, so it's hard to calculate percentage reductions) but I estimate that you might reduce journey times on those Cherrywood/Sandyford - O'Connell Street journeys by up to around 15% with the metro/LUAS interchange.
    If you were to eventually reach Firhouse/Knocklyon with the metro - and building an initial phase to Rathmines would be part of that - it seems pretty clear that you would reduce a Firhouse - O'Connell Street journey by around 60-70% (it is, apparently, considerably more than an hour now, by bus, at peak times, but should be about 20 minutes or so by metro).

    Wow thanks for stating the obvious!
    The point being that extending the metro to Charlemont would save 15% of the journey time from day 1.
    Your argument regarding Rathmines completely contradicts your earlier suggestion that extending to Charlemont is of little benefit.
    The slope from Charlemont Bridge has been able to handle LUAS trams for several years now, so I don't think that's an issue. And access to Adelaide Road shouldn't be a problem if you wanted to build a line towards Baggot Street, though I do think it might be necessary to demolish that building at the corner of Peter Place and Adelaide Road.
    Except the slope at Charlemont reduces the speed f trams meaning the throughput is lower
    What is odd about it? Many many cities have two or more tram lines feeding into one.
    Completely different to what you are proposing. Many cities converge tram lines in the city centre... you’re proposing the exact opposite.
    And do you think there'd really be a lack of demand to get to and from Baggot Street Bridge (or perhaps beyond, places like Grand Canal Dock) at peak time?
    From the green line direction... yes
    I am really puzzled by your statement about 'confusion with more spurs off the Green Line'. I can't think of any existing spurs off the Green Line, so adding one spur should be fine. In general, people nowadays are able to look at a network map and figure out the best way to get themselves to work and to their home.
    Because the green line is already broken down 2 service patterns. Broomsbridge - Sandyford and Parnell - Brides Glen. Now you want to add a 3rd route into it. Meaning if you want to get to certain sections of the line your wait time could be up to 6 minutes. Add in the majority of people want to go to the city centre and you’re actually reducing their capacity.
    There should also be no need to upgrade any sections of the Green Line for the increased throughput which a Baggot Street spur would require.
    Tieing into the green line would take months alone. As was the case with LCC.
    I am not wrong about the densities. You quite rightly pointed out that there is on part of 'Rathfarnham' which lies North of the Dodder, in the Dublin City Council area, and is indeed adjacent to the LUAS; this has an area of 1.23 sq. km, a population of 4,683, and a population density of 3,797 per sq.km.

    For some of the other suburbs at a distance from the LUAS, the densities are:

    Rathfarnham (SCD): population 17478. 4,239 people per sq.km;
    Terenure: population 17468, 4,391 people per sq.km;
    Firhouse (incl. Knocklyon) population 23,949, 3,753 people per sq.km.

    For comparison, Dundrum: total population 23,653, 3,349 per sq.km.

    In other words, Dundrum has a population density which is lower than all of those, indeed well over 1,000 people per sq.km. lower than Terenure, and almost 900 people per sq.km lower than Rathfarnham (South County Dublin). I don't have the space here, but other suburbs along the Green line tell pretty much the same story.

    And, if anyone needs to be reminded, Dundrum already has a railway line delivering people rapidly into and out of the city.

    Again you’re not reading the EDs correctly. The Dundrum Luas stop serves Chruchtown too for example.
    Half of the Rathfarnham ED is already served by Milltown Luas.
    In my opinion the sensible thing to do, on the Southside, would be to build towards Rathmines in the years to 2027, extend that to Firhouse under the next funding round to around 2032, then use the years to about 2040 to build a spur off that line (I would favour Harold's Cross....Walkinstown to hoover up loads of bus passengers from many areas).

    You do understand how TBMs work right? You can’t just extend a line because it sounds good. In your scenario the TBM would be dismantled in Rathmines station. Any future extension would have to come from the South towards Rathmines and if it was to tie in with the station, the station would be closed for a period of up to 4 years.
    Add in the 3 years of design and planning, the 7 years construction and you’d struggle open in 2040 never mind this 2032




  • They should have a dedicated link from the Airport to Hueston.
    Then a Metro basically doing a ring around Inner City - up the South Quays,Heuston then up to Broadstone all the way to the Port and back.
    Piggybacking the airport connection onto metro is short sighted. Sure you'd have to stop at every single station to catch a flight.
    Have the Dart undergound, Metro and an Airport link all meet under Heuston.
    Chuck in a Bus interchange their also.

    Then the Dart, Airport, Metro and Luas are all linked.




  • TheW1zard wrote: »
    They should have a dedicated link from the Airport to Hueston.
    Then a Metro basically doing a ring around Inner City - up the South Quays,Heuston then up to Broadstone all the way to the Port and back.
    Piggybacking the airport connection onto metro is short sighted. Sure you'd have to stop at every single station to catch a flight.
    Have the Dart undergound, Metro and an Airport link all meet under Heuston.
    Chuck in a Bus interchange their also.

    Then the Dart, Airport, Metro and Luas are all linked.

    Cross Guns stop is not far from Heuston, and served by the PPT.




  • TheW1zard wrote: »
    They should have a dedicated link from the Airport to Hueston.
    Then a Metro basically doing a ring around Inner City - up the South Quays,Heuston then up to Broadstone all the way to the Port and back.
    Piggybacking the airport connection onto metro is short sighted. Sure you'd have to stop at every single station to catch a flight.
    Have the Dart undergound, Metro and an Airport link all meet under Heuston.
    Chuck in a Bus interchange their also.

    Then the Dart, Airport, Metro and Luas are all linked.

    A dedicated, Heuston - Airport rail link with no intermediate stops would be a fantastic waste of time, money and political capital for public transport. Express railway links are usually so expensive the only tourists are prepared to be fleeced.

    Just build DU and the Metro, and widen the Northern line and do it properly.




  • donvito99 wrote: »
    A dedicated, Heuston - Airport rail link with no intermediate stops would be a fantastic waste of time, money and political capital for public transport. Express railway links are usually so expensive the only tourists are prepared to be fleeced.

    Just build DU and the Metro, and widen the Northern line and do it properly.


    Will DU and metro be the same gauge as the other lines in Ireland?


  • Advertisement


  • Will DU and metro be the same gauge as the other lines in Ireland?


    DU will (if ever built), metro won't (same as luas, and most of Europe)




  • Imagine trying to get to the airport in rush hour though




  • Rulmeq wrote: »
    DU will (if ever built), metro won't (same as luas, and most of Europe)

    Actually, the Metro system could be built using Irish gauge now that it is not going south of Charlemont (at least at current thinking). The benefit if Std gauge was the ease of upgrading the GL to metro, but with Irish gauge, it could travel on to Donabate and onto Drogheda, if the Dart expansion goes ahead. They are putting in Dart std electric OH wires (1500v) so only the gauge would be different.

    Also, if they do go with the GL extension south, it would just require the tracks to be changed, which since they are laid on ballast for the most part would not be a huge undertaking.

    If DU were to go ahead with Irish gauge, it could use the Metro rolling stock if they were both the same gauge.

    However, the decision has been made on the gauge, so this would not happen.




  • TheW1zard wrote: »
    Imagine trying to get to the airport in rush hour though

    Because it’s a dedicated route underground it’ll still only take 25 minutes from O’Connell St.
    Add in the fact that heading to the airport at rush hour is against the conventional flow towards the city and there really isn’t an issue




  • Actually, the Metro system could be built using Irish gauge now that it is not going south of Charlemont (at least at current thinking). The benefit if Std gauge was the ease of upgrading the GL to metro, but with Irish gauge, it could travel on to Donabate and onto Drogheda, if the Dart expansion goes ahead. They are putting in Dart std electric OH wires (1500v) so only the gauge would be different.

    Also, if they do go with the GL extension south, it would just require the tracks to be changed, which since they are laid on ballast for the most part would not be a huge undertaking.

    If DU were to go ahead with Irish gauge, it could use the Metro rolling stock if they were both the same gauge.

    However, the decision has been made on the gauge, so this would not happen.

    This has been discussed before, they are 2 different systems.
    We’ve already seen the huge difficulties Irish Rail have trying to get rolling stock.
    Add in the different loading and it’s a non runner.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    This has been discussed before, they are 2 different systems.
    We’ve already seen the huge difficulties Irish Rail have trying to get rolling stock.
    Add in the different loading and it’s a non runner.

    I accept the argument that Std gauge will be used.

    However:

    There is a EU standard for loading (SE-C). How does the IR loading standard differ? The gauge is hardly the huge difference from acquiring rolling stock.

    Why does the Metro (to-be std) not comply with IR loading if the wheels are slightly further apart?

    Platform height differs from Commuter and Dart trains. How did that happen?

    Metro std is not defined yet, so it could be anything as long as id does not exceed SE-C.




  • I accept the argument that Std gauge will be used.

    However:

    There is a EU standard for loading (SE-C). How does the IR loading standard differ? The gauge is hardly the huge difference from acquiring rolling stock.

    Why does the Metro (to-be std) not comply with IR loading if the wheels are slightly further apart?

    Platform height differs from Commuter and Dart trains. How did that happen?

    Metro std is not defined yet, so it could be anything as long as id does not exceed SE-C.

    The loading is governed by the gauge.
    Asking why IR loading is different is the same as asking why IR Gauge is different. This was all pre-EU.
    I have no idea what you’re saying regarding platform heights?
    As regards your last point well that just undermines your whole argument. Given that IR Gauge is wider, it’s loading will be higher meaning you couldn’t run existing IR stock on the new line significantly reducing the potential benefits.

    Also forgot to mention you point regarding simply relaying the green line tracks is wrong. You’d have to demolish and rebuild all the platforms to accommodate wider tracks. The tracks at the stops are slab track. So you’d add months if not years to the construction time.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    The loading is governed by the gauge.
    Asking why IR loading is different is the same as asking why IR Gauge is different. This was all pre-EU.
    I have no idea what you’re saying regarding platform heights?
    As regards your last point well that just undermines your whole argument. Given that IR Gauge is wider, it’s loading will be higher meaning you couldn’t run existing IR stock on the new line significantly reducing the potential benefits.

    Also forgot to mention you point regarding simply relaying the green line tracks is wrong. You’d have to demolish and rebuild all the platforms to accommodate wider tracks. The tracks at the stops are slab track. So you’d add months if not years to the construction time.

    The Irish gauge is 16.5cm (6.5 in) wider than Std Gauge. How does that affect loading? Are the wheels bigger?

    The platforms on the GL need rebuilding anyway for Metro, and the loading for a metro would be significantly different from Luas. This is also included in the Metrolink documentation.

    Why would you want existing rolling stock to run on the metro? That makes no sense whatsoever. Metro will be fully automated so no current rolling stock could run on it. Metro running on the Northern Line from Donabate to Droghedra might have some merit at busy times. Of course Dart expansion would need to occur first.

    If they are going with DU, they will be putting Irish gauge trains underground, so why not include metro in that with unified rolling stock?




  • The Irish gauge is 16.5cm (6.5 in) wider than Std Gauge. How does that affect loading? Are the wheels bigger?
    The load is spread over a wider area.
    The platforms on the GL need rebuilding anyway for Metro, and the loading for a metro would be significantly different from Luas. This is also included in the Metrolink documentation.
    Except that the green line was constructed with this in mind. The platforms don’t need a complete rebuild as part of the upgrade and the tracks can remain in place.
    Why would you want existing rolling stock to run on the metro? That makes no sense whatsoever. Metro will be fully automated so no current rolling stock could run on it. Metro running on the Northern Line from Donabate to Droghedra might have some merit at busy times. Of course Dart expansion would need to occur first.
    The metro rolling stock will be purchased based on running from Estuary to Sandyford (Charlemont at first). To run trains to Drogheda you’d need additional rolling stock. Where is that going to come from?
    If they are going with DU, they will be putting Irish gauge trains underground, so why not include metro in that with unified rolling stock?
    Because they are 2 different systems. Of course DU is going to be IR gauge, it is connected to IR at either end. Metro isn’t




  • I think the current plans are crap


  • Advertisement


  • Last Stop wrote: »
    Except that the green line was constructed with this in mind. The platforms don’t need a complete rebuild as part of the upgrade and the tracks can remain in place.

    The metro will use high-floor trains and as such the existing green line platforms will need to be raised.




  • AAAAAAAAA wrote: »
    The metro will use high-floor trains and as such the existing green line platforms will need to be raised.

    Also Metro trains will be wider than trams.




  • Last Stop wrote: »
    The load is spread over a wider area.

    The Irish gauge is only slightly wider - 16.5 cm (6.5in), and that is just the bogey. The same train can fit on either bogey.

    Except that the green line was constructed with this in mind. The platforms don’t need a complete rebuild as part of the upgrade and the tracks can remain in place.
    The Metro trains are high floor and wider.

    The metro rolling stock will be purchased based on running from Estuary to Sandyford (Charlemont at first). To run trains to Drogheda you’d need additional rolling stock. Where is that going to come from?

    It would only be at times of demand, and would only be a few trains, not all of them. A bit like the Greystones Dart service only a lot fewer..

    Because they are 2 different systems. Of course DU is going to be IR gauge, it is connected to IR at either end. Metro isn’t

    Well, if the Metro was Irish gauge, they could run on the appropriate Irish gauge lines. It would be nice to have the choice.

    We need a network of train lines for Dublin, and the more inter-operability the better.




  • The Irish gauge is only slightly wider - 16.5 cm (6.5in), and that is just the bogey. The same train can fit on either bogey.
    When people start using only in their argument you know they’re fighting a losing battle. In precision engineering that’s a huge amount!
    The Metro trains are high floor and wider.
    And when they built the green line, they deliberately spaced the tracks further apart to allow for wider metro trains. Raising the platforms is relatively easy in comparison to your suggestion of digging up the rails.
    It would only be at times of demand, and would only be a few trains, not all of them. A bit like the Greystones Dart service only a lot fewer..

    That’s the point, if there is demand for that, then demand on the rest of the line would be pretty high meaning you’ll need all your rolling stock. Add in the distance to Drogheda and you’d need several trains to make up for even one trains running that distance.
    Well, if the Metro was Irish gauge, they could run on the appropriate Irish gauge lines. It would be nice to have the choice.

    We need a network of train lines for Dublin, and the more inter-operability the better.

    No because metro is also a driverless system meaning it is impossible for it to run on IR lines.
    A network doesn’t mean that the lines are joined together. You don’t see DLR trains on the underground do you? It’s the same in every city. Different systems serve different purposes and together make up a network.
    The benefits of standard gauge significantly outweigh the few advantages of IR gauge.




  • I think I will give up on this. It is like playing tennis against a haystack. But just to answer some of your points.

    In Australia, they used to change bogies on trains as they passed from Irish gauge to std. It is a train, not a rocket, or a watch.

    If metro trains are wider, the platforms must be further back.

    It is approx 30 mins Drogheda to Donabate, so for each extra service per hour needs one extra train. I would think that is not a huge number.

    If the line cannot take driverless trains, then the lines are not appropriate.

    Anyway, this is a fruitless line of discussion.




  • https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0224/1117239-new-mastercard-jobs/

    Surely it is a no brainer to be upgrading the greenline to Metrolink. We need to be planning for life in Ireland in 2040 and beyond not 2025.




  • prunudo wrote: »
    Surely it is a no brainer to be upgrading the greenline to Metrolink. We need to be planning for life in Ireland in 2040 and beyond not 2025.

    The Green Line isn't even sufficient for Ireland in 2020 during peak hours. It's an absolute joke that such an easy win is being passed over.




  • AAAAAAAAA wrote: »
    The Green Line isn't even sufficient for Ireland in 2020 during peak hours. It's an absolute joke that such an easy win is being passed over.

    I'd say there is a window of a few years for that decision on the GL to be changed. The timeline is quite long before the TBM gets even close SSG, and it will go south of just short of Beechwood. So plenty of time to decide.




  • I'd say there is a window of a few years for that decision on the GL to be changed. The timeline is quite long before the TBM gets even close SSG, and it will go south of just short of Beechwood. So plenty of time to decide.


    Eamon Ryan and the greens will be in cabinet and government during 2020s . They have and will continue to block any plans to upgrade the South Green line to Metrolink. They want metro southwest. The greens are fundamental environment extremists. There will be no upgrade until the greens are dealt with by the electorate


  • Advertisement


  • Kevtherev1 wrote: »
    Eamon Ryan and the greens will be in cabinet and government during 2020s . They have and will continue to block any plans to upgrade the South Green line to Metrolink. They want metro southwest. The greens are fundamental environment extremists. There will be no upgrade until the greens are dealt with by the electorate

    Nothing wrong with a south western route Metro but it shouldn't be at the expense of the green line upgrade. We have a real opportunity here to build something very beneficial for generations to come. It would be an awful shame to loose a relatively cheap upgrade to capacity for narrow mindedness and petty political point scoring.


Advertisement