Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

strassenwo!f

It looks very nice. Bring it on.

But what is achieved by not giving the people living in this development a direct run into town?

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to get on their tram in Cherrywood and travel directly into town, with no change, as they could if they were living there now?

Introducing a change to a metro line at Sandyford won't make their journey noticeably any quicker and just involves disruption to their reading of the newspaper, doing the crossword or scanning facebook.

By all means increase the throughput on the line, which would seem to be very doable, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be any need to upgrade the infrastructure, and it's hard to see that there will be for the next 20-30 years or so.

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

which can be remedied by running driverless 90m hfv every 3 mins which equates to 90 secs in the cc tunnel. Connectivity is also streamlined this way.

But surely you can see that this means that the two south side spurs would for ever have half the capacity of the one northern line. This is just bad planning. I’m very keen on the SW line as I would benefit directly from it but the bigger picture is surely to get it right from day one and this idea seems like a compromise that can’t be righted. Two lines forever separate with appropriate interchanges with each other buses luas and dart is what I really want in the long run

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

if a seperate ne/sw line was chosen where would the interchange on the southside of the city be located? as in if i live in rathfarnham and want to travel to lets say ssg, i shouldnt have to go to glasnevin to get a metro back the way i came.
i understand the point about cutting frequency on the green line if a spur was built, but there would still be a metro travelling through the tunnel every 90 secs, and if that metro was driverless 90m hfv there would be plenty of capacity for sw, south and north.
The advantages being:
the capital cost would be far less with a sw spur than a seperate line sw/ne.
connectivity on the south side of the city, as generally ssg is the centre of town on the southside, also allows for sw to south movements, and of course allows sw to north movements with one simple change at whatever interchange station is chosen.

Just to be clear, I am not a transport planner and any ideas are at best crayon wielding.

I would run the line from Tallaght throgh Harold's Cross, Christchurch, Smithfield, Whitworth Rd, Then of East towards Whitehall and onto Clongriffin.

Now that allows connection at Christchurch, if ever they build DU, Smithfield for the Red line, Whitworth for Metrolink, Maynooth, Sligo, Connolly, etc. Then Whitehall to connect with buses, and onto Clongiffin, where it connects with the Northern Line.

Now, inside the Canal, the Metro II is no more than 1 km fron SSG, or Charlemont. Now a km is a reasonable walk, but there are connections further on if it is too far. There should be feeder buses to go orbital routes as well. For example, Rathfarnum to Sandyford would be best achieved by an orbital route than a trip into town and back out.

If you put the connection at Tara ST, the two lines are almost one tunnel, so not much capture area. Whitworth could also be a changeover interchange, so trains could go Sandyford- Clongriffin or Sandyford - Swords, and Tallaght - Swords or Tallaght - Clongriffin. To me, the aim should be to create a network that allows a rail connection from anywhere to anywhere else on the network with only one or perhaps two changes.



Now, in true crayon mode, you can rub out the bits you disagree with and draw them elsewhere.

tom1ie

salmocab wrote: »

But surely you can see that this means that the two south side spurs would for ever have half the capacity of the one northern line. This is just bad planning. I’m very keen on the SW line as I would benefit directly from it but the bigger picture is surely to get it right from day one and this idea seems like a compromise that can’t be righted. Two lines forever separate with appropriate interchanges with each other buses luas and dart is what I really want in the long run

yes agreed but where would the south side interchange be?
ill use the example, i start in firhouse and i want to go to ssg. i don't want to have to go to glasnevin to get a train back in the direction i just came from, that makes no sense.
what capacity per direction per hour do driverless 90m hfv with psg's fitted achieve? lets say they run every 3 mins?

CatInABox

tom1ie wrote: »

if a seperate ne/sw line was chosen where would the interchange on the southside of the city be located? as in if i live in rathfarnham and want to travel to lets say ssg, i shouldnt have to go to glasnevin to get a metro back the way i came.

If Metro II is built as a seperate SW to NE line, then just by doing some crayoning, I say a station at SSG for Metrolink interchange, and a station at Pearse for Dart Interchange.

It's also possible that they'd have the interchange at Tara St, as that's going to have both Dart and Metrolink.

Realistically, Dart Underground will probably be built first, and where that goes is all up in the air after the redesign of Metrolink. It's been suggested that it could go down under Dame St, and have an interchange station at Tara as well.

tom1ie

also i wonder what percentage of people that get on at firhouse are only going as far as the cc, so if the spur went from ssg to firhouse, via rathmines. that way if anyone from firhouse wants to go to the airport/swords they change at ssg where they are guaranteed that a metrolink metro will come along in less than 90 secs as the metro 2 metro only runs on the spur so dosent half the capacity on the metrolink tunnel-if you understand me.

citizen6

tom1ie wrote: »

someone suggested an idea where metrolink could tie in north of windy arbour via rathmines where an underground station could be built. provision for a future spur to the sw could be integrated in rathmines.
positives being you are making the tie in a simpler affair as milltown golf course could be cpo'ed and the line tie in could proceed there.
this would solve the at grade issues the green line luas has at the minute (cant remember the specific pinch points)
it would be a start towards serving the sw with a rail based transport system anyway.
obviously the negatives is trying to cpo milltown golf course, and the extra cost of tunneling the 4.2 km to go to windy arbour via rathmines.

The idea was to avoid the messes at Charlemont, Dunville Ave etc, and still provide the extra capacity on the current green line, while also setting up a relatively easy SW Luas (as a separate project).

Using the dead end of the post-Metro green line (which would be at Windy Arbour rather than Charlemont) as the starting point of a SW line makes it much more likely that we'll see such a thing any time soon. And wouldn't take any capacity away from Sandyford.

The new Luas would only need 5km of tunnel (Windy Arbour to Knocklyon Road) and would serve Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Firhouse or Tallaght.

I take the point that changing the plan risks killing the whole project. But the green line closures required to resolve Charlemont tie-in, Dunville Ave and Richmond Ave do that too.

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

yes agreed but where would the south side interchange be?
ill use the example, i start in firhouse and i want to go to ssg. i don't want to have to go to glasnevin to get a train back in the direction i just came from, that makes no sense.
what capacity per direction per hour do driverless 90m hfv with psg's fitted achieve? lets say they run every 3 mins?

Well I’d think that the interchange should be very central Stephen’s green or Connell street would seem obvious

tom1ie

citizen6 wrote: »

The idea was to avoid the messes at Charlemont, Dunville Ave etc, and still provide the extra capacity on the current green line, while also setting up a relatively easy SW Luas (as a separate project).

Using the dead end of the post-Metro green line (which would be at Windy Arbour rather than Charlemont) as the starting point of a SW line makes it much more likely that we'll see such a thing any time soon. And wouldn't take any capacity away from Sandyford.

The new Luas would only need 5km of tunnel (Windy Arbour to Knocklyon Road) and would serve Rathfarnham, Knocklyon and Firhouse or Tallaght.

I take the point that changing the plan risks killing the whole project. But the green line closures required to resolve Charlemont tie-in, Dunville Ave and Richmond Ave do that too.

yeah its a good idea, the problem i have on it would the the luas from firhouse would have its capacity limited by the max capacity and frequency luas cross city can handle. I suppose people travelling from firhouse to anywhere along the northern half of metrolink could just change at windy arbour and get on the metro there, anyone going to the cc would just stay on the luas.
what is the capacity of the luas that runs on the cross city section per direction per hour at the minute?

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

also i wonder what percentage of people that get on at firhouse are only going as far as the cc, so if the spur went from ssg to firhouse, via rathmines. that way if anyone from firhouse wants to go to the airport/swords they change at ssg where they are guaranteed that a metrolink metro will come along in less than 90 secs as the metro 2 metro only runs on the spur so dosent half the capacity on the metrolink tunnel-if you understand me.

That’s not a spur then it’s a separate line just going SSG to firhouse

citizen6

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah its a good idea, the problem i have on it would the the luas from firhouse would have its capacity limited by the max capacity and frequency luas cross city can handle. I suppose people travelling from firhouse to anywhere along the northern half of metrolink could just change at windy arbour and get on the metro there, anyone going to the cc would just stay on the luas.
what is the capacity of the luas that runs on the cross city section per direction per hour at the minute?

They are claiming 8000 ppdph once new trams are in place. It would make a significant difference to Rathfarnham and Firhouse I'd imagine (and indirectly to Terenure with fewer buses passing through). Benefit to Rathmines as well which would have a Metro stop.

tom1ie

salmocab wrote: »

That’s not a spur then it’s a separate line just going SSG to firhouse

ok. My bad. i got the terminology wrong. Well, if it was constructed like this what would the consensus on this forum be?

tom1ie

citizen6 wrote: »

They are claiming 8000 ppdph once new trams are in place. It would make a significant difference to Rathfarnham and Firhouse I'd imagine (and indirectly to Terenure with fewer buses passing through). Benefit to Rathmines as well which would have a Metro stop.

that would make a huge difference. Excuse my amatuer maths but thats the equivalent of more than 80 jammed full double decker busses heading into the cc from firhouse per hour. (taking it that a db double decker has a capacity of 100 people)

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

ok. My bad. i got the terminology wrong. Well, if it was constructed like this what would the consensus on this forum be?

Well I’m sure everyone would be delighted at a second metro line, I doubt a single person here would be disappointed with that. The obvious thing would be to then tunnel out NE from that point creating the full second metro that lots have suggested

tom1ie

salmocab wrote: »

Well I’m sure everyone would be delighted at a second metro line, I doubt a single person here would be disappointed with that. The obvious thing would be to then tunnel out NE from that point creating the full second metro that lots have suggested

yeah agreed but it has to start somewhere and i think we need metrolink+ green upgrade and before metrolink is finished start ssg to firhouse or windy arbour to rathfarnham. my preference is ssg to firhouse

salmocab

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah agreed but it has to start somewhere and i think we need metrolink+ green upgrade and before metrolink is finished start ssg to firhouse or windy arbour to rathfarnham. my preference is ssg to firhouse

Again I doubt anyone actually disagrees that that would make sense, the general disagreement has been about money or which of the southern sections is better/more likely.
If a line is going SW I would certainly like to see it hit Harold’s x terenure Rathfarnham ballyboden knocklyon and firhouse.

strassenwo!f

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just to be clear, I am not a transport planner and any ideas are at best crayon wielding.

I would run the line from Tallaght throgh Harold's Cross, Christchurch, Smithfield, Whitworth Rd, Then of East towards Whitehall and onto Clongriffin.

Now that allows connection at Christchurch, if ever they build DU, Smithfield for the Red line, Whitworth for Metrolink, Maynooth, Sligo, Connolly, etc. Then Whitehall to connect with buses, and onto Clongiffin, where it connects with the Northern Line.

Now, inside the Canal, the Metro II is no more than 1 km fron SSG, or Charlemont. Now a km is a reasonable walk, but there are connections further on if it is too far. There should be feeder buses to go orbital routes as well. For example, Rathfarnum to Sandyford would be best achieved by an orbital route than a trip into town and back out.

If you put the connection at Tara ST, the two lines are almost one tunnel, so not much capture area. Whitworth could also be a changeover interchange, so trains could go Sandyford- Clongriffin or Sandyford - Swords, and Tallaght - Swords or Tallaght - Clongriffin. To me, the aim should be to create a network that allows a rail connection from anywhere to anywhere else on the network with only one or perhaps two changes.



Now, in true crayon mode, you can rub out the bits you disagree with and draw them elsewhere.

Sam, it was mentioned earlier in this thread, by the poster lxflyer, that your proposal doesn't hit any of the main points in the city.

We know, from cities of a similar size to Dublin, that it is vital that a line hits one or more of the key points in the city.

In Dublin, the key area lies broadly in a triangle between the Parnell Monument, St. Stephen's Green and somewhere around Parliament Street (though that could be stretched, at a push, to Christchurch).

These areas are the only areas which are busy all the time, and that's not going to change. You need to hit at least one of those points.

The formerly proposed interconnector did this at two points (St. Stephen's Green and Christchurch). The proposed metrolink does it at O'Connell Bridge and St. Stephen's Green, and I've no problem, broadly, with what the authorities are trying to do, as it hits the key area at two points.

But a line to/from the southwest of the city would also hit this key area at two points, and might (or would, in my opinion) deliver more for the city overall.

The line you propose for metro 2 would, at a stretch, hit just one of the main points in the key area of the city, at Christchurch. But we should be able to to do better.

Consonata

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You need to hit at least one of those points.

Not necessarily, Orbital routes do exist, and Dublin could definetly use one to link up the Dart lines with the west of Dublin

citizen6

Like it or not, we now have a fairly high capacity line running through the city centre - Luas Cross City. It will be extended to Finglas on the northside. It would be criminal to terminate it at Charlemont on the southside.

We should be looking at where, post-Metrolink, we will tie in a S/SW *Luas* tunnel to the Cross City's new terminus. Whether that's at Charlemont or Beechwood or Windy Arbour. (And Charlemont looks like it would be a nightmare.)

An entirely separate SW Metro would be fantastic but I can't see it opening in the next 40 years. And a SW Metro along the N81 isn't really serving Rathfarnham anyway.

tom1ie

citizen6 wrote: »

Like it or not, we now have a fairly high capacity line running through the city centre - Luas Cross City. It will be extended to Finglas on the northside. It would be criminal to terminate it at Charlemont on the southside.

We should be looking at where, post-Metrolink, we will tie in a S/SW *Luas* tunnel to the Cross City's new terminus. Whether that's at Charlemont or Beechwood or Windy Arbour. (And Charlemont looks like it would be a nightmare.)

An entirely separate SW Metro would be fantastic but I can't see it opening in the next 40 years. And a SW Metro along the N81 isn't really serving Rathfarnham anyway.

both charlemount and beechwood look like theyd be a nightmare for a tie in, very limited space. Windy arbour looks like a good possibility, but its too far south to provide terenure with a service. The line cant start at windy arbour, head back north to terenure and then go south again to rathfarnham.
for me it has to be a seperate metro line servicing firhouse knocklyon ballyboden rathfarnham terenure rathgar rathmines and ssg.

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

both charlemount and beechwood look like theyd be a nightmare for a tie in, very limited space. Windy arbour looks like a good possibility, but its too far south to provide terenure with a service. The line cant start at windy arbour, head back north to terenure and then go south again to rathfarnham.
for me it has to be a seperate metro line servicing firhouse knocklyon ballyboden rathfarnham terenure rathgar rathmines and ssg.

I'd actually say there is pretty decent space for a tie in at Beechwood, south of Dunville Avenue, as a plan B if those junctions are too complicated. CPO of an apartment building and one house, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Though I'm not sure what you would do with the Luas at Beechwood then. I suppose it could go underground there and head towards Rathmines, Terenue, etc.

bk

This is the area I'm talking about:



This is just south of Beehwood Station, the station is just 88m away at the top of this picture with Dunville Avenue north of it.

In the picture you see houses to the left, with big back gardens, then a back alley, then trees and finally the Luas tracks. This to me looks like it would make for a perfect tie-in location.

The distance from the bungalo at the top of this picture to the bottom is 180 meters.

The road and trees are 20m wide at the widest at the top, dropping to about 8m at the bottom. Note the Luas tracks are about 8.5m wide.

So that looks like you would have about 170m for a tunnel to emerge and tie-in to the tracks there. The angle is even perfect. And that is without any CPO'ing.

If they needed more room, the they could CPO the bungalo and what looks to be four apartments for an extra 88m run up. You could also CPO back gardens if needed.

Looks like a great location for a tie in:

- Tie-in looks quiet doable here, with either no or very little CPOing
- Just 1.2km extra tunnelling from Charlemont
- Avoids Cherlemont, Ranelagh Bridge and Dunville Avenue issues.

For extra bonus points you could have it swing through Belgrave Square to give Rathmines a station and possible location for a SW spur.

tom1ie

bk wrote: »

This is the area I'm talking about:



This is just south of Beehwood Station, the station is just 88m away at the top of this picture with Dunville Avenue north of it.

In the picture you see houses to the left, with big back gardens, then a back alley, then trees and finally the Luas tracks. This to me looks like it would make for a perfect tie-in location.

The distance from the bungalo at the top of this picture to the bottom is 180 meters.

The road and trees are 20m wide at the widest at the top, dropping to about 8m at the bottom. Note the Luas tracks are about 8.5m wide.

So that looks like you would have about 170m for a tunnel to emerge and tie-in to the tracks there. The angle is even perfect. And that is without any CPO'ing.

If they needed more room, the they could CPO the bungalo and what looks to be four apartments for an extra 88m run up. You could also CPO back gardens if needed.

Looks like a great location for a tie in:

- Tie-in looks quiet doable here, with either no or very little CPOing
- Just 1.2km extra tunnelling from Charlemont
- Avoids Cherlemont, Ranelagh Bridge and Dunville Avenue issues.

For extra bonus points you could have it swing through Belgrave Square to give Rathmines a station and possible location for a SW spur.

yeah i like this plan. A station at belgrave square would be only a 5min walk to rathmines main road, the station would be better under the swan centre but i presume thatd put too much of a curve on the track when heading off to beechwood.
The station in rathmines would become an important hub for transport, with many bus routes, cycling routes, metrolink and metro 2 all converging in a high density area. Sounds quite plausible.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

This is the area I'm talking about:



This is just south of Beehwood Station, the station is just 88m away at the top of this picture with Dunville Avenue north of it.

In the picture you see houses to the left, with big back gardens, then a back alley, then trees and finally the Luas tracks. This to me looks like it would make for a perfect tie-in location.

The distance from the bungalo at the top of this picture to the bottom is 180 meters.

The road and trees are 20m wide at the widest at the top, dropping to about 8m at the bottom. Note the Luas tracks are about 8.5m wide.

So that looks like you would have about 170m for a tunnel to emerge and tie-in to the tracks there. The angle is even perfect. And that is without any CPO'ing.

If they needed more room, the they could CPO the bungalo and what looks to be four apartments for an extra 88m run up. You could also CPO back gardens if needed.

Looks like a great location for a tie in:

- Tie-in looks quiet doable here, with either no or very little CPOing
- Just 1.2km extra tunnelling from Charlemont
- Avoids Cherlemont, Ranelagh Bridge and Dunville Avenue issues.

For extra bonus points you could have it swing through Belgrave Square to give Rathmines a station and possible location for a SW spur.

It could also allow the Luas to retain the connection so engineering movements of trams could continue.

The only issue would be that it would tip the preference towards LFV from HFV that would be against my preference. We could end up with trams.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

It could also allow the Luas to retain the connection so engineering movements of trams could continue.

The only issue would be that it would tip the preference towards LFV from HFV that would be against my preference. We could end up with trams.

why would it do that sam? Are you saying if the connection was kept it could mean lfv instead of hfv. moving the tunnel further south past beechwood wont change things from lfv to hfv or am i missing something?

bk

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah i like this plan. A station at belgrave square would be only a 5min walk to rathmines main road, the station would be better under the swan centre but i presume thatd put too much of a curve on the track when heading off to beechwood.
The station in rathmines would become an important hub for transport, with many bus routes, cycling routes, metrolink and metro 2 all converging in a high density area. Sounds quite plausible.

Yes, the City Council depot behind the Swan center looks like the obvious place for a Metro station for Rathmines, but it looks to me like it would be too tight a curve from their to this location at Beehwood, so that is why I think Belgrave Square would be more doable, it is more inline with it. Obviously that is all something the planner could look at, might be possible.

Sam Russell wrote: »

It could also allow the Luas to retain the connection so engineering movements of trams could continue.

The only issue would be that it would tip the preference towards LFV from HFV that would be against my preference. We could end up with trams.

Why would it tip the preference? If it was just a engineering link, then it wouldn't matter, trams could still run on this section, just not stop at stations along it (high platforms).

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

why would it do that sam? Are you saying if the connection was kept it could mean lfv instead of hfv. moving the tunnel further south past beechwood wont change things from lfv to hfv or am i missing something?

What I mean is if the Luas/Metrolink tie in allows the Luas trams through, the platforms north of Sandyford could be left as is to accommodate trams, which makes the Metro tram like - that is low floor. If the Luas north of the tie in is severed then there is no need to maintain the low floor option for the platforms, and the high floor option becomes the better option.

Now there is no need to allow trams passing along the Metro line for engineering reasons to carry passengers, but the temptation will there to allow it by the politicos.

Just another trip up.

bk

Actually the more I think about it, the more I wonder was this location at Beechwood originally set aside as the location for the tie-in. The way those trees and alley curve into the track at almost the perfect angle makes it feel like it was almost deigned for it!

It would also explain why Dunville Avenue wasn't bridged originally, it wouldn't need to be if this was where the Metro emerged.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Actually the more I think about it, the more I wonder was this location at Beechwood originally set aside as the location for the tie-in. The way those trees and alley curve into the track at almost the perfect angle makes it feel like it was almost deigned for it!

It would also explain why Dunville Avenue wasn't bridged originally, it wouldn't need to be if this was where the Metro emerged.

You give great credit to the planners of the Green Line.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

What I mean is if the Luas/Metrolink tie in allows the Luas trams through, the platforms north of Sandyford could be left as is to accommodate trams, which makes the Metro tram like - that is low floor. If the Luas north of the tie in is severed then there is no need to maintain the low floor option for the platforms, and the high floor option becomes the better option.

Now there is no need to allow trams passing along the Metro line for engineering reasons to carry passengers, but the temptation will there to allow it by the politicos.

Just another trip up.

If it is just an engineering connection, then it would never carry passengers anyway, it wouldn't be allowed, just as they aren't allowed when trams use the other engineering connections around the city.

I get what you are saying about the political temptation, but I think it would be an easy one to avoid.