Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

salmocab

D14Rugby wrote: »

Option 3. Build a sw line, reducing the load on the existing green line and the surrounding roads to help reduce inconvenience if the green line is upgraded.

We can’t afford that option.
Just to be clear also if we are upgrading the green line to metro it has to go somewhere so it’s a whole new line once it goes underground. It has to go at least to the city center proper or realistically under the city and out the north side somewhere. We’ll be lucky if we can afford to start to build that in the next 25 years.

marno21

salmocab wrote: »

We can’t afford that option.
Just to be clear also if we are upgrading the green line to metro it has to go somewhere so it’s a whole new line once it goes underground. It has to go at least to the city center proper or realistically under the city and out the north side somewhere. We’ll be lucky if we can afford to start to build that in the next 25 years.

I think the NTA would love a network of Metros dotted around the city but they have decided to be pragmatic and focus on this realistic goal:

Have Metro North+South and DART Underground operational by ~2035.

Given the current state of Dublin's rail network, and all plans aside, that to me seems to be the right level of ambition and realism. I would be quite happy with that instead of another Metro project sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere.

salmocab

marno21 wrote: »

I think the NTA would love a network of Metros dotted around the city but they have decided to be pragmatic and focus on this realistic goal:

Have Metro North+South and DART Underground operational by ~2035.

Given the current state of Dublin's rail network, and all plans aside, that to me seems to be the right level of ambition and realism. I would be quite happy with that instead of another Metro project sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere.

I’m not optimistic on DU but I’d be hopeful that once Metrolink is up and running that we’ll have politicians pushing for more because people will be very happy with it. DU is really important but I can see it losing a pr war to further metros

D14Rugby

salmocab wrote: »

We can’t afford that option.
Just to be clear also if we are upgrading the green line to metro it has to go somewhere so it’s a whole new line once it goes underground. It has to go at least to the city center proper or realistically under the city and out the north side somewhere. We’ll be lucky if we can afford to start to build that in the next 25 years.

What are you on about? The green line is added to the metro. Of course it goes somewhere

salmocab

D14Rugby wrote: »

What are you on about? The green line is added to the metro. Of course it goes somewhere

But if we did your plan then Metrolink would go to SW Dublin. So when the green line is upgraded it would require a new metro to be built as the green line can’t be upgraded in isolation.

CatInABox

D14Rugby wrote: »

What are you on about? The green line is added to the metro. Of course it goes somewhere

Building two Southside metros that combine into one tunnel effectively halves the capacity in each of the tunnels.

Metrolink is planned to have capacity for around 15000 people per hour per direction. The Luas Green line will soon have capacity for around 8160, so your idea would "upgrade" it to 7500.

jd

CatInABox wrote: »

The Luas Green line will soon have capacity for around 12000, so your idea would "upgrade" it to 7500.

Green Line at 24 tph, using the longer trams, will have capacity of 8,160 passengers per direction per hour afair

CatInABox

jd wrote: »

Green Line at 24 tph, using the longer trams, will have capacity of 8,160 passengers per direction per hour afair

Yes, that's the second time I've done that, and it's all based on the Irish Times article on the Green Line overcrowding at Christmas time. They combined the current capacity of the two lines into one number( i.e. 6000 + 6000 =12000), and for whatever reason, it's just totally stuck in my head.

Either way, 7500 capacity won't be enough in the medium or long term.

Thanks for the correction though.

Sam Russell

Marcusm wrote: »

One of the options is to tie in south if Beechwood - basically around the Albany Road pedestrian entrance. Beechwood Metro would be underground and Beechwood Luas would be at surface. The tunnel would rise up in the laneways behind the Moyne Road houses (loss of gardens at least temporarily) and then the metro line would curve across to join the Luas tracks. I can see that there would only need to be a short term closure to accommodate the tie in. Query whether the Luas can continue to run from Beechwood in throughout that time and whether the southbound could continue to Milltown or Cowper.

Adjustments to the platforms are presumably going to have to be effected at some stage. I can see the value of a SW running line. Pity there wasn’t effective lobbying for it earlier. There’s limited appetite to continue deferring the project. Swords at least deserves a better route south!

If the Metro were to emerge south of Beechwood, there is no need for a metro station at Beechwood. Cowper is only 500 m away, so why build an underground station?

If I was designing the route, I would put at stations at SSG, Portabello Bridge, then Cowper and onto the remaining GL stops.

The GL would then turn around at Beechwood. I would also put a spur from Harcout, along Adelaide Rd, with a stop at Leeson St Bridge, then Baggot St Bridge, and if possible, along Percy Place towards GCD. I would see 50% of trams going this route. Alternatively, send the GL down the South Circular or the canal to Rialto to join up with the Red Line. If both were done, the Luas would become a network, allowing people to avoid the CC.

Just an idea.

D14Rugby

CatInABox wrote: »

Building two Southside metros that combine into one tunnel effectively halves the capacity in each of the tunnels.

Metrolink is planned to have capacity for around 15000 people per hour per direction. The Luas Green line will soon have capacity for around 8160, so your idea would "upgrade" it to 7500.

If you'd like to point out where I said to combine them into one that'd be great thanks. I said run a SW line, never said it had to directly link up with the North line

Sam Russell

D14Rugby wrote: »

If you'd like to point out where I said to combine them into one that'd be great thanks. I said run a SW line, never said it had to directly link up with the North line

So were does it go?

D14Rugby

Sam Russell wrote: »

So were does it go?

Terminate in town and allow for potential extension to the next area that needs a line

marno21

D14Rugby wrote: »

Terminate in town and allow for potential extension to the next area that needs a line

Did you suggest this idea to the NTA when they were preparing the 2016-2035 Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy from which this scheme is omitted?

Sam Russell

D14Rugby wrote: »

Terminate in town and allow for potential extension to the next area that needs a line

And leave the TBM in the ground? What a waste.

D.L.R.

D14Rugby wrote: »

Terminate in town and allow for potential extension to the next area that needs a line

dumb AF

CatInABox

D14Rugby wrote: »

If you'd like to point out where I said to combine them into one that'd be great thanks. I said run a SW line, never said it had to directly link up with the North line

I have to admit, I assumed that you were talking about joining the southwest line to the north line, because all of the other possibilities were extremely lacking. Just what are you talking about?

You want to build the north line, then a southwest line, and finally go back and upgrade the green line? That is a very Irish way of doing it I suppose.

Marcusm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the Metro were to emerge south of Beechwood, there is no need for a metro station at Beechwood. Cowper is only 500 m away, so why build an underground station?

If I was designing the route, I would put at stations at SSG, Portabello Bridge, then Cowper and onto the remaining GL stops.

The GL would then turn around at Beechwood. I would also put a spur from Harcout, along Adelaide Rd, with a stop at Leeson St Bridge, then Baggot St Bridge, and if possible, along Percy Place towards GCD. I would see 50% of trams going this route. Alternatively, send the GL down the South Circular or the canal to Rialto to join up with the Red Line. If both were done, the Luas would become a network, allowing people to avoid the CC.

Just an idea.

Beechwood would be the first/final Green line stop. It would not be realistic to expect it not to seemlessly connect with Metrolink at Beechwood.

CatInABox

Marcusm wrote: »

Beechwood would be the first/final Green line stop. It would not be realistic to expect it not to seemlessly connect with Metrolink at Beechwood.

According to the options shortlisted for consideration, the Beechwood south option (It's Option 6(A) in the Green Line Tie In Options Report) will result in the Beechwood Luas stop being removed and replaced with a Metro station, meaning that Ranelagh will be new Green Line terminus.

Presumably, there's not enough room for both Luas and Metro stations with the metro being so shallow there, as it's emerging immediately after the station

Interestingly enough, this option will probably result in the Luas being out of commission for longer during construction, as there doesn't seem to be any room to build temporary tracks going around the construction site.

This leads me to believe that the speculation from last month is correct, they're going to present this option, with a lengthy Luas disconnection, and also the connection at Charlemont, without a lengthy Luas disconnection.

Sam Russell

Marcusm wrote: »

Beechwood would be the first/final Green line stop. It would not be realistic to expect it not to seemlessly connect with Metrolink at Beechwood.

True, one could think that, but why? If a southbound passenger wants to go beyond Beechwood, they change at SSG. Beechwood is only 500 m from Cowper.

Anyway, I am suggesting that the GL branches at Harcourt and heads East GCD or West to Rialto, or both. Rialto to GCD is about 5 km, so would be a useful addition to both the Red Line and the GL, particularly if the routing allowed for SSG to GCD and SSG to Rialto or even Tallaght, or even GCD to Rialto with other possiblities. The Rialto would connect to the Red Line, in both directions.

It would produce a fantastic network of rail based PT outside of the CC. No idea how much it would cost.

Also bringing Metrolink to Portabello (bridge) would go somewhere to helping that area. It would also reduce the number of underground stations needed.

jd

CatInABox wrote: »

According to the options shortlisted for consideration, the Beechwood south option (It's Option 6(A) in the Green Line Tie In Options Report) will result in the Beechwood Luas stop being removed and replaced with a Metro station, meaning that Ranelagh will be new Green Line terminus.

It's not quite clear from the document (see below!)

CatInABox

jd wrote: »

It's not quite clear from the document (see below!)


<SNIP>

Yeah, the document could have done with some more polish. The table of contents says that option 6 is shortlisted, but when you get there, it's option 6(A).

Anyway, the text of the shortlisted option 6(A) is pretty unambiguous:

A developed design for Option 6, called Option 6(A), isillustrated in Figure 29. Consistent with Options
3 and 4, this option has been changed to an in-line tie-in solution. As a result, the alignment moves
approximately 30m east, significantly reducing property impacts on Dunville Avenue and Moyne Road.
The final operating configuration will result in the severance of the existing Luas Green Line at
Ranelagh with future Metro vehicles operating exclusively south of the tie-in point in order to enable
through Metro services from Swords to Bride’s Glen. Luas Green Line services will operate between
the Ranelagh and Broombridge Stops. Ranelagh Stop will become the terminus for the Luas Green Line
with the provision of a turnback facility, south of the stop.

That's on page 48.

Hugh_C

Dats me wrote: »

You're doubling the length of the tunnel, therefore the cost.

Not true, the costing doesn't work like that.

Kevtherev1

As soon as Metrolink 1 begins construction in early 2022, people should be straight on to their TDs and NTA to lobby for the design of a second metroline.


A second metro line needs to be designed and put through planning during the 2020s. We should demand a second metro line to be ready for construction in 2030 and be built during 2030s.



A third line built during 2040s etc.

Marcusm

CatInABox wrote: »

According to the options shortlisted for consideration, the Beechwood south option (It's Option 6(A) in the Green Line Tie In Options Report) will result in the Beechwood Luas stop being removed and replaced with a Metro station, meaning that Ranelagh will be new Green Line terminus.

Presumably, there's not enough room for both Luas and Metro stations with the metro being so shallow there, as it's emerging immediately after the station

Interestingly enough, this option will probably result in the Luas being out of commission for longer during construction, as there doesn't seem to be any room to build temporary tracks going around the construction site.

This leads me to believe that the speculation from last month is correct, they're going to present this option, with a lengthy Luas disconnection, and also the connection at Charlemont, without a lengthy Luas disconnection.

That’s 6(A) which involves the Green Libe terminating at Ranelagh. There was a 6(B) but missing from the document you linked. That had a different configuration and a reduced impact on housing demolition (as opposed to temporary garden acquisition) which was 6(B) and which had the advantage that the Green Line technically never got severed and carsets could still progress through to Sandyford depot for maintenance and sleepy time.

Marcusm

Sam Russell wrote: »

True, one could think that, but why? If a southbound passenger wants to go beyond Beechwood, they change at SSG. Beechwood is only 500 m from Cowper.

Anyway, I am suggesting that the GL branches at Harcourt and heads East GCD or West to Rialto, or both. Rialto to GCD is about 5 km, so would be a useful addition to both the Red Line and the GL, particularly if the routing allowed for SSG to GCD and SSG to Rialto or even Tallaght, or even GCD to Rialto with other possiblities. The Rialto would connect to the Red Line, in both directions.

It would produce a fantastic network of rail based PT outside of the CC. No idea how much it would cost.

Also bringing Metrolink to Portabello (bridge) would go somewhere to helping that area. It would also reduce the number of underground stations needed.

I’m probably ignoring the “alternative” routes part as realistically I can’t see them going back to drawing board with completely new alignments. A crossover between the two lines at more than one place can reduce pinchpoints.

It’s not the distance between Cowper and Beechwood but more the practicality of the walk between them. Even today there are too many people alighting at each of those stations and walking up/down the tracks. That cannot happen with Metrolink. Accordingly the gap between them increases significantly due to the geography of local roads.

CatInABox

Marcusm wrote: »

That’s 6(A) which involves the Green Libe terminating at Ranelagh. There was a 6(B) but missing from the document you linked. That had a different configuration and a reduced impact on housing demolition (as opposed to temporary garden acquisition) which was 6(B) and which had the advantage that the Green Line technically never got severed and carsets could still progress through to Sandyford depot for maintenance and sleepy time.

Inside knowledge?

Doesn't look like there's much room around there to do an at-grade tie-in, looking at the diagram for option 6, on page 31. These are the permanent acquisitions that they're looking at for there:

• Luas kiosk at Beechwood Stop
• 1–5 Dunville Avenue (3 houses)
• 16 apartments at Dunville Court
• House and garage to the rear of the apartments
• 2–6 Moyne Court (5 houses)
• Parts of rear gardens of 71–111 Moyne Road

Sounds expensive, but it's something that I'd prefer if it got us an at-grade tie in.

Sam Russell

Marcusm wrote: »

I’m probably ignoring the “alternative” routes part as realistically I can’t see them going back to drawing board with completely new alignments. A crossover between the two lines at more than one place can reduce pinchpoints.

It’s not the distance between Cowper and Beechwood but more the practicality of the walk between them. Even today there are too many people alighting at each of those stations and walking up/down the tracks. That cannot happen with Metrolink. Accordingly the gap between them increases significantly due to the geography of local roads.

Obviously I assuming that someone going to, say, get off at Beechwood is not going to the Beechwood station itself but to somewhere nearby. If they get off at Cowper, or Portabello, they are a bit further away that they would like, but not necessarily the full 500 metres. This is a bit like carefully choosing a mythical journey that could be difficult just to prove that that journey is impractical. If that is the way the line is built, then people will choose their best options. Perhaps some will get off and walk, others will go to SSG and travel back. Others will just complain.

As for people walking along the line, there are likely to be physical barriers to stop people doing so.

If there is only one stop between Cowper and SSG at Portabello, then more passengers will benefit that lose out. Dropping a station saves money - Dropping two stations saves twice as much.

lucernarian

Considering the public outcry over the building of the NCH and its budget, the impact of construction inflation and the very vague estimates used in critical parts of the Cost-to-benefit analysis of the metrolink project, can we see route alternatives that will minimise the cost of the project? Assuming there is the political stubbornness to deliver *something* rail based to the northside of Dublin at least in our lifetimes.

Marcusm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Obviously I assuming that someone going to, say, get off at Beechwood is not going to the Beechwood station itself but to somewhere nearby. If they get off at Cowper, or Portabello, they are a bit further away that they would like, but not necessarily the full 500 metres. This is a bit like carefully choosing a mythical journey that could be difficult just to prove that that journey is impractical. If that is the way the line is built, then people will choose their best options. Perhaps some will get off and walk, others will go to SSG and travel back. Others will just complain.

As for people walking along the line, there are likely to be physical barriers to stop people doing so.

If there is only one stop between Cowper and SSG at Portabello, then more passengers will benefit that lose out. Dropping a station saves money - Dropping two stations saves twice as much.

I would agree that there is no point in so much duplication. Realistically, however, the planned route is not going anywhere near Portobello and acquiring land for a station might be complex!

Marcusm

CatInABox wrote: »

Inside knowledge?

Doesn't look like there's much room around there to do an at-grade tie-in, looking at the diagram for option 6, on page 31. These are the permanent acquisitions that they're looking at for there:



Sounds expensive, but it's something that I'd prefer if it got us an at-grade tie in.

No inside knowledge and it looks to me that the documents have been changed - now only 155/177 visible. Option 6(b), which no longer seems to appear, was a Beechwood South tie in which involved Green Line continuing to Beechwood and Metrolink rising up and “joining” it. The cost was higher than Charlemont it Ranelagh but did not have the same level of road closures or closure of the existing line for any significant period. Given the thrust of opposition I would have thought these were better factors. A tie in at Charlemont or Ranelagh sterilises a lot more land, closed roads permanently and had environmental considerations (Ranelagh Gardens destruction) that I suspect could get it tied up in litigation for years.

Sometimes I wonder if there is the capability of weighing 4 or 5 factors and discerning the most cost effective path of least resistance.