We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
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 (Swords to Charlemont only)

2456766

Comments

  • #2


    Well, the extreme would be to have an entrance at each end on the 100 m station box, which would give about 150 m separation. I doubt it would add much except in the centre of town, and in particular SSG, and perhaps OCS.

    Tara St is a special case.
    It's not just about the as the crow flies distance. If it was I would agree that 150m is of little benefit.

    It's about eliminating the need to cross that busy road.

    Here in Berlin a typical station has a mezzanine at each end of the station box which splits left and right to provide access from both sides of the street.

    Only where there is no space would there be only two exits. I can't think of a single Berlin U-Bahn station with just one exit.


  • #2


    I have a question and forgive me if it has already been answered. I love the interchange with the heavy rail lines at Glasnevin idea. I am just wondering will the heavy rail interchange be built before the Metro station? Personally, I think that the IE part could proceed as a stand-alone project and would be a very useful transfer point ever before the Metro reaches it.
    As I understand it, the tracks which continue through Drumcondra station will have to be closed to allow for the construction of the Metrolink station box underneath (it won't stretch under the Docklands line tracks). Engineering works will be required to facilitate all trains using the other tracks temporarily. Only once the station box is complete can the IE part of the station be sorted out so very little can be done until the station box is in.


  • #2


    murphaph wrote: »
    It's not just about the as the crow flies distance. If it was I would agree that 150m is of little benefit.

    It's about eliminating the need to cross that busy road.

    Here in Berlin a typical station has a mezzanine at each end of the station box which splits left and right to provide access from both sides of the street.

    Only where there is no space would there be only two exits. I can't think of a single Berlin U-Bahn station with just one exit.

    Well, yes, incorporating a subway under the road would make sense, and increase pedestrian safety. Not sure about antisocial behaviour though, particularly if the ML is unmanned.


  • #2


    jvan wrote: »
    I would have thought from a fire safety point of view they'd have to have 2 exits.
    Stations usually have dedicated emergency exit routes separate from the main public entrance/exit.


  • #2


    Well, yes, incorporating a subway under the road would make sense, and increase pedestrian safety. Not sure about antisocial behaviour though, particularly if the ML is unmanned.

    Pretty sure underground stations will have to be manned? I know that’s the case with Bank DLR vs the rest of the network, probably an EU regulation (and a wise one at that)


  • #2


    Qrt wrote: »
    Pretty sure underground stations will have to be manned? I know that’s the case with Bank DLR vs the rest of the network, probably an EU regulation (and a wise one at that)
    Definitely not an EU regulation. Hundreds of unmanned underground stations across the EU.


  • #2


    The new positioning of the Northwood station seems to be entirely with 2 entrances in mind - one on either side of the road. I still can't see how they can justify digging up the road though

    They think the tunnel machine portal site could be developed after completion which would a lovely site.


  • #2


    Dats me wrote: »
    The new positioning of the Northwood station seems to be entirely with 2 entrances in mind - one on either side of the road. I still can't see how they can justify digging up the road though

    They think the tunnel machine portal site could be developed after completion which would a lovely site.

    Doesn't have to be the whole road, half at a time will do. That road is a dual carriageway that serves nowhere other than IKEA


  • #2


    murphaph wrote: »
    Definitely not an EU regulation. Hundreds of unmanned underground stations across the EU.

    Oh right, I just going off my research of the Copenhagen metro.


  • #2


    Why Charlemont anyway? On the outbound rush hour the trams are packed until Dundrum.

    We're likely to see some sort of mad rush from a metro at Charlemont to a LUAS which doesn't have the capacity to take everyone. It sounds vaguely dangerous.


  • #2


    Artistic impressions of some stations have been added
    https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports


  • #2


    jd wrote: »
    Artistic impressions of some stations have been added
    https://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports


    Love what they have proposed for Tara, but there would be war!


  • #2


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    Love what they have proposed for Tara, but there would be war!

    Seems a bit bland, I'd rather some building...

    Also, no real interchange at Charlemont? Jaysus...


  • #2


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    Love what they have proposed for Tara, but there would be war!

    The white area surrounding the Irish times building is to be redeveloped, so it's not going to be quite as empty


  • #2


    Qrt wrote: »
    Seems a bit bland, I'd rather some building...

    Also, no real interchange at Charlemont? Jaysus...

    Doesn't look like it from that angle, but they've already acknowledged that Charlemont is the station most likely to change, so hopefully the final design isn't as bad there.


  • #2


    Qrt wrote: »
    Seems a bit bland, I'd rather some building...

    Also, no real interchange at Charlemont? Jaysus...

    Physically I can’t see the interchange at a Charlemont as ever being efficient; it’s like the interchange between the Jubilee Line and DLR at Canary Wharf. The Metro should join in with Green Line south of Beechwood - no Dunville fight and no ****ty interchange at Charlemont.


  • #2


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Physically I can’t see the interchange at a Charlemont as ever being efficient; it’s like the interchange between the Jubilee Line and DLR at Canary Wharf. The Metro should join in with Green Line south of Beechwood - no Dunville fight and no ****ty interchange at Charlemont.

    I suppose, thinking about it again, there's the O'Connell Street station and the Luas stop, and a station at St Stephen's Green.


  • #2


    Qrt wrote: »
    I suppose, thinking about it again, there's the O'Connell Street station and the Luas stop, and a station at St Stephen's Green.

    O’Connell St will be ok heading northbound - Luas will be on street and Metro station will be in new shopping centre where Carlton cinemas is/was. On SSG, they will be on different sides of the green. There’s no efficient interface planned.


  • #2


    Marcusm wrote: »
    O’Connell St will be ok heading northbound - Luas will be on street and Metro station will be in new shopping centre where Carlton cinemas is/was. On SSG, they will be on different sides of the green. There’s no efficient interface planned.

    Ya I know about Stephen’s Green but people won’t need to change at Stephen’s Green because many will be alighting anyway


  • #2


    One other thing, when I talked to some engineers at one of the presentations they indicated the TBM would tunnel at about 80 meters a week.


  • #2


    We will get a proper Swords - Sandyford Metro eventually, we just need to make a load of nonsensical decisions and generally make a dogs mickey of it before we get there. Overcrowding on the Green Line and the most impractical interchange ever at Charlemont we see a huge outcry for a proper continuous Metro. Doing things right will have majority public support and the media won't be pandering to the vocal minority. People will complain that things weren't done right from the start and that more money has to be spent to rectify the situation, totally oblivious to the fact that public opinion was in favour of the horse designed by committee approach which gave us an inadequate camel.


  • #2


    jd wrote: »
    One other thing, when I talked to some engineers at one of the presentations they indicated the TBM would tunnel at about 80 meters a week.

    That would suggest about 6 years of tunnelling. They cannot start fitting rails until the TBM is out of the tunnel because the spoil goes back to the start. That would suggest a decade before we see a train.


  • #2


    That would suggest about 6 years of tunnelling. They cannot start fitting rails until the TBM is out of the tunnel because the spoil goes back to the start. That would suggest a decade before we see a train.


    The tunnel is about 2500 meters under the airport - that is about 30 weeks.

    Then they would have to bring it back to site at Northwood and reassemble.

    I make it about 9000 meters from Northwood to Charlemont.

    That is 9000/80 = 112 weeks or so, which is about 2 years and 2 months.

    You are looking at the guts of 3 years (including moving the TBM back to Northwood and reassembling)


  • #2


    jd wrote: »
    The tunnel is about 2500 meters under the airport - that is about 30 weeks.

    Then they would have to bring it back to site at Northwood and reassemble.

    I make it about 9000 meters from Northwood to Charlemont.

    That is 9000/80 = 112 weeks or so, which is about 2 years and 2 months.

    You are looking at the guts of 3 years (including moving the TBM back to Northwood and reassembling)

    Not as bad as I thought. Still it is a lot of spoil.


  • #2


    Out of interest, I measured Eamon Ryan's suggested route ("keeping the TBM going") of continuing on via UCD and then on to Sandyford. It's about 7.5 k. That would be another 90 weeks or so of tunelling (ie pushing the time out when services could start ruinning by nearly 2 years)


  • #2


    Where is the spoil going to?


  • #2


    Qrt wrote: »
    Where is the spoil going to?

    They’re digging another tunnel and using that to keep the spoil in


  • #2


    That would suggest about 6 years of tunnelling. They cannot start fitting rails until the TBM is out of the tunnel because the spoil goes back to the start. That would suggest a decade before we see a train.

    They mention one of the pros of going with a single larger tunnel bore option, is that they have space to start fit out work on the tunnel behind the boring machine. I wouldn't expect laying of track, but it sounds like they could get a lot done in parallel.


  • #2


    Qrt wrote: »
    Where is the spoil going to?
    I remember someone saying it could be dumped in a cut away bog to fill up the land and make use of it, no idea if that is genuinely being considered.


  • #2


    Qrt wrote: »
    Where is the spoil going to?

    Dublin Port is one option, Rosslare Port is another. There have not finalised anything yet.


Society & Culture