Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

Eamon Ryan is clearly pro-Metrolink, but I get the sense he's....not very politically well-inclined.

When he started suggesting alternate crayon routes for Metrolink during the first consultation - when the sewer main problem was still not publicly known - he was well-intentioned, but ultimately he just added more accelerant to the localised public outrage that led to the south section being long-fingered (if not entirely abandoned).

A more pragmatically political approach would have been to separate out critique of the southern section from the perfectly fine plan for the Swords to Charlemont route. But he didn't do that, and that's why to many it felt like he was attacking the whole project, and why some have this perception of him as "anti-Metrolink".

I also want to mention this:



I'm not sure your memory on the chronology of this is correct.

From what I remember, the sewer main issue was discovered between consultations. When the second consultation began, the southern upgrade had already been removed from the project. That's also when we got access to all of the reports outlining the extended closure times for that Green Line upgrade.

However those extended closure times were based around two massive caveats that emerged after the first consultation: the existence of that pesky sewer main, and the political necessity to retain Dunville Avenue as a thoroughfare.

Actually I remember it quite clearly.

There was always going to have to be an extended closure, which was my point.

That wasn’t caused by the switch from surfacing at Charlemont to surfacing south of Beechwood.

One closure would have been to tie the two lines into one another which would be a fixed period.

The second which would be a combination of rolling closures and fixed periods have been for all of the enabling works to convert the line to Metro - in the main station works and the necessary power upgrades.

That wasn’t communicated well at all and should have been from the outset - it gave opponents an open door!

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I also think "transport issues that face south Dublin" is way too broad a geographical definition - there are very different issues in south-east Dublin compared to south-west Dublin.

Well given I live in south Dublin (I’m neither south east nor south west) it seemed appropriate to me. The lines of demarkation do get blurred! ;-)

But you’re right that there are a multitude of separate issues facing the south east and south west, but they do become intertwined the closer you get to the city, and the area south of the city centre between the former N11 and say the Crumlin Road does face the same problems - narrow roads and lots of traffic with very little room for expansion.

But that discussion really is for a different thread!

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

Actually I remember it quite clearly.

There was always going to have to be an extended closure, which was my point.

That wasn’t caused by the switch from surfacing at Charlemont to surfacing south of Beechwood.

One closure would have been to tie the two lines into one another which would be a fixed period.

The second which would be a combination of rolling closures and fixed periods have been for all of the enabling works to convert the line to Metro - in the main station works and the necessary power upgrades.

That wasn’t communicated well at all and should have been from the outset - it gave opponents an open door!

I agree with the last, however it did seem that under the original plan the closure period would have been much shorter. Unfortunately we can only extrapolate backwards from the reports we got from the post-sewer main routing, so we’ll never really know how short the original route closures could have been.

MJohnston

One thing I think I was careful to say when Ryan was putting about his alternative UCD crayon route is that it’s not an inherently bad alternative, but that at the time it would have added enough cost to the project to reduce the political feasibility and doom the whole thing.

However, as a follow-on project to Metrolink Swords to Charlemont, one that doesn’t affect the durability of that line, it has a lot of merit now. Especially as the political landscape has radically change over the last 18 months or so. We now have Green political power, we have an environmental push from the population that’s actually loud enough to affect change, and we have the twin pandemic and recession crises which push us in the direction of building more green transport infrastructure.

Podge_irl

MJohnston wrote: »

One thing I think I was careful to say when Ryan was putting about his alternative UCD crayon route is that it’s not an inherently bad alternative, but that at the time it would have added enough cost to the project to reduce the political feasibility and doom the whole thing.

While also causing the whole project to be delayed at least several years. This, ultimately, is the practical outcome of what Ryan was suggesting. It doesn't really matter if he was ultimately pro or anti the concept. By bringing in, essentially the red herring of a SW alignment or a UCD alignment he risked derailing the entire project.

Thankfully, it seems that this has not made it into the PfG. In this sense the fact that the metro has been curtailed anyway probably helps.

cgcsb

No reason why the green line can't be repurposed to run UCD to Finglas at some stage in the future. While Having Swords-Sandyford as the main show. Trying to change metrolink now is as good as cancellation for the whole thing. I imagine that a Tallaght to Coolock metro line will also emerge in some form in the future but no reason not to plow on with current plans and future projects can tie in with a new design.

Kellyconor1982

cgcsb wrote: »

No reason why the green line can't be repurposed to run UCD to Finglas at some stage in the future. While Having Swords-Sandyford as the main show. Trying to change metrolink now is as good as cancellation for the whole thing. I imagine that a Tallaght to Coolock metro line will also emerge in some form in the future but no reason not to plow on with current plans and future projects can tie in with a new design.

Yeah my view exactly. The original Metro West also has a lot of merits and needs to be considered.

It nearly is just about getting the first line through the door. Metrolink will be a gigantic success and I believe it will lead to multiple lines around the city in time. It's crazy how low our ambitions are but I would hope that by say 2045, you could hop on a Metro at the airport and be able to get to pretty much any part of the city by metro or at least within a short distance.

Sam Russell

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Yeah my view exactly. The original Metro West also has a lot of merits and needs to be considered.

It nearly is just about getting the first line through the door. Metrolink will be a gigantic success and I believe it will lead to multiple lines around the city in time. It's crazy how low our ambitions are but I would hope that by say 2045, you could hop on a Metro at the airport and be able to get to pretty much any part of the city by metro or at least within a short distance.

Exactly. A Metro of any design would be good, but one that goes from the airport to the city centre with a frequency as suggested could not fail.

Then you have economists like Colm McCarthy suggesting the airport is well served by buses and cars and a Metro to the airport is not needed, and anyway it is just a tram service. Just shows how lowly informed our public chatterati are. He has railed against any infrastructure project since he was a lad, including Luas and now Metro.

If only the politicians had backed the 1970s Dart projects.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Exactly. A Metro of any design would be good, but one that goes from the airport to the city centre with a frequency as suggested could not fail.

Then you have economists like Colm McCarthy suggesting the airport is well served by buses and cars and a Metro to the airport is not needed, and anyway it is just a tram service. Just shows how lowly informed our public chatterati are. He has railed against any infrastructure project since he was a lad, including Luas and now Metro.

If only the politicians had backed the 1970s Dart projects.

Most 'economists' are visionless creatures who are, in practice, just accountants. They can only tell you X is expensive, they're not to be trusted on policy matters.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I agree with the last, however it did seem that under the original plan the closure period would have been much shorter. Unfortunately we can only extrapolate backwards from the reports we got from the post-sewer main routing, so we’ll never really know how short the original route closures could have been.

To be honest I’m not sure how the original closure period of the Green alone could be much shorter? If anything it would be longer given that the route switched from tram to metro would be longer.

The work in terms of connecting the lines would be the same, but the enabling works would have been longer given more stops were involved.

They never went into any detail about that aspect until the second consultation by which time the route had changed.

The problem as I said was that this was not explained at the early stage (apart from an off-the-record discussion that I had with an RPA engineer at one of the first consultation meetings when I asked fairly detailed questions and got some surprisingly honest answers).

If the fact that sections of the Green Line would have to close for lengthy periods had been more generally discussed at an early stage I think a lot of the nonsense could have been avoided.

It boiled back to very poor communications by the NTA.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Most 'economists' are visionless creatures who are, in practice, just accountants. They can only tell you X is expensive, they're not to be trusted on policy matters.

You are quite right but why are they listened to?

Economics is usually described as 'the dismal science' and the story of an accountant who became an actuary because he could not stand the excitement.

However, in Irish journalism they normally like to get balance - even when it is ludicrous.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

To be honest I’m not sure how the original closure period of the Green alone could be much shorter? If anything it would be longer given that the route switched from tram to metro would be longer.

The work in terms of connecting the lines would be the same, but the enabling works would have been longer given more stops were involved.

They never went into any detail about that aspect until the second consultation by which time the route had changed.

The problem as I said was that this was not explained at the early stage (apart from an off-the-record discussion that I had with an RPA engineer at one of the first consultation meetings when I asked fairly detailed questions and got some surprisingly honest answers).

If the fact that sections of the Green Line would have to close for lengthy periods had been more generally discussed at an early stage I think a lot of the nonsense could have been avoided.

It boiled back to very poor communications by the NTA.

Well, the sewer definitely changed the plans and costings. The early dismissal of connecting north of Charlemont was a mistake given the sewer making such a connection at least possible. Connecting south of Beechwood was also not preferred, but it would have solved the Donore Ave problem which dates back to the penny pinching Luas plans..

There should also be an early decision to go driverless, with high floor trains.

The other problem was the St Raphaella's Road, which needs an over-bridge whether it is Metro or Luas.

Overall, it is par for the course in these matters. It needs to be built, whatever it ends up as. Look at the mess that was made of two Luas lines that do not join up, only cross, and even the service connection requires the south bound tram to reverse directions.

Pete_Cavan

The length of closure of the Green Line for tie-in was due to the tunnel surfacing directly under the tracks. The tie-in would have required much less disruption if Metrolink came to ground level beside the Green Line and the tie-in happened at surface level. With the Charlemont tie-in ruled out by the sewer, tie-in further south would require CPOing houses around Ranelagh which isn't politically acceptable.

I think after the first consultation, TII were told the tunnel won't be surfacing around Ranelagh and Dunville Ave is staying open to traffic. This then meant that connecting the Metrolink to the Green Line required a much longer closure by the time of the second consultation. There are engineering solutions which could have minimised the length of closure but the consequences of these were unpalatable politically.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the sewer definitely changed the plans and costings. The early dismissal of connecting north of Charlemont was a mistake given the sewer making such a connection at least possible. Connecting south of Beechwood was also not preferred, but it would have solved the Donore Ave problem which dates back to the penny pinching Luas plans..

There should also be an early decision to go driverless, with high floor trains.

The other problem was the St Raphaella's Road, which needs an over-bridge whether it is Metro or Luas.

Overall, it is par for the course in these matters. It needs to be built, whatever it ends up as. Look at the mess that was made of two Luas lines that do not join up, only cross, and even the service connection requires the south bound tram to reverse directions.

How much was the costings for re routing the sewer?
What size sewer are we dealing with?
What extensive works are we talking about here. It couldn’t be that complicated a job!

Sam Russell

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The length of closure of the Green Line for tie-in was due to the tunnel surfacing directly under the tracks. The tie-in would have required much less disruption if Metrolink came to ground level beside the Green Line and the tie-in happened at surface level. With the Charlemont tie-in ruled out by the sewer, tie-in further south would require CPOing houses around Ranelagh which isn't politically acceptable.

I think after the first consultation, TII were told the tunnel won't be surfacing around Ranelagh and Dunville Ave is staying open to traffic. This then meant that connecting the Metrolink to the Green Line required a much longer closure by the time of the second consultation. There are engineering solutions which could have minimised the length of closure but the consequences of these were unpalatable politically.

It was the tunnelling under the existing line that gave rise to the requirement for extended closure.

I would have preferred to take the tunnel further west to provide a stop at Portabello and approach Beechwood from the west and join south of that stop, preferably without breaking the existing GL connection. However, the choice of 1500 v rather than 750 v makes that irrelevant.

We can all use our crayons in the privacy of our own homes.

CatInABox

tom1ie wrote: »

How much was the costings for re routing the sewer?
What size sewer are we dealing with?
What extensive works are we talking about here. It couldn’t be that complicated a job!

There was no costings required, as permission from Irish Water was required, and it was clear that no permission would be forthcoming.

This is a large diameter trunk sewer that runs directly to the Ringsend processing plant. It deals with sewage for a lot of south Dublin, along with Meath and Kildare I believe. Works on that sewage line could impact on a significant number of people, and quite frankly, our sewage system is barely able to cope as is.

It'd also have to move a significant distance, either north or south, as it'd still be in the way even if it was moved anywhere within the canal corridor.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are quite right but why are they listened to?

Economics is usually described as 'the dismal science' and the story of an accountant who became an actuary because he could not stand the excitement.

However, in Irish journalism they normally like to get balance - even when it is ludicrous.

That is not helped by there not being one specialist transport journalist in the country who can refute the claims that the likes of Colm McCarthy make, or who know what questions to ask the operating companies and the NTA.

Unfortunately it means that a lot of spurious claims go unchallenged on all sides.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the sewer definitely changed the plans and costings. The early dismissal of connecting north of Charlemont was a mistake given the sewer making such a connection at least possible. Connecting south of Beechwood was also not preferred, but it would have solved the Donore Ave problem which dates back to the penny pinching Luas plans..

There should also be an early decision to go driverless, with high floor trains.

The other problem was the St Raphaella's Road, which needs an over-bridge whether it is Metro or Luas.

Overall, it is par for the course in these matters. It needs to be built, whatever it ends up as. Look at the mess that was made of two Luas lines that do not join up, only cross, and even the service connection requires the south bound tram to reverse directions.

Fair point regarding the sewer, but regardless there certainly would be a lengthy closure regardless of what location is chosen and the communication of that was abysmal.

The St Raphaela's issue wasn't insurmountable and could have probably been dealt with a small number of weekend closures.

The conversion of the system from driver operated trams to driverless, power upgrades and the need for station rebuilds with protective screens would all contribute to a reasonably long closure, albeit with some of that on a rolling basis, as sadly they aren't things that can be done over a weekend.

The geometry available at the Marlborough Street/Abbey Street junction is such that a tram transfer from red line to green line cannot be done any other way than as you outline, but let's be honest that's a very niche requirement - it has barely ever been used.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

To be honest I’m not sure how the original closure period of the Green alone could be much shorter? If anything it would be longer given that the route switched from tram to metro would be longer.

The originally proposed route of the Metrolink Green Line upgrade (the one that the public were shown in the first consultation) had a tunnel portal that did not disrupt the existing Green Line. There would have had to be work to tie-in the Metrolink line to the existing Green Line, but that's it. And history with Luas BXD has shown that it is possible to install a line tie-in very very quickly when they're at-grade.

That original Metrolink route was then scrapped between the first and second public consultations. This was due to the canal sewer main making the offline tunnel portal at Charlemont impossible.

Then political pressure over Dunville Avenue meant that the GL upgrade would have to retain the road without using a bridge of any sort - this coupled with budgetary concerns* meant that the only option was to surface the tunnel online with the existing Green Line, dig up the Green Line at Dunville Avenue, tunnel it under the road, and build an entirely new Beechwood station.

These two things are what increased the time that the Green Line would be closed, and this change happened between the public consultations.

Politicians who were briefed early on this (what I'll call the Interim Route) started leaking stuff to the press, which stirred up a whole lot of grief, and the NTA ultimately decided to can the Green Line upgrade entirely.

There was never a public consultation period where a long-term closure of the Green Line was ever on the table.

As for the possibilities of it being shorter, well this is a purely hypothetical exercise but have a look at the closure timeline for the Interim Route:



The original plan, the one that was presented in the initial public consultation and that promised closures in the range of months rather than years, would not require most of the "Beechwood portal construction" duration, nor would it need the new Luas Beechwood station or Metrolink Beechwood station portions.

The removal of the St Raphael's crossing was already explained as being constructed parallel to the existing Green Line and not disrupting the line (for anything other than tie-in installation).

So what are we left with? Well between the two remaining sections "MetroLink works" and "Green Line upgrade to MetroLink", only the following portions would lead to closures:

• Completion of Green Line upgrade works (3 months)
• Testing and commissioning (3 months)
• Trial running (3 months)

How long did the Red Line/Green Line crossover works take? I think maybe a couple of weeks or something? That's something that could have been scheduled to run in parallel with the Green Line upgrade works.

I would wager a lot of the testing, commissioning, and trial running could have been handled without widespread closures also.

In short, I think it was possible that the original plan we saw for MetroLink could have been built with only a few months worth of Green Line closures (as we were told at the time). What extended those closures was the inability to use the original plan's tunnel portal alignment, and the political demands to retain Dunville Avenue, combined with a lack of will to spend bigger on the project*.

*I say this because with a higher budget for the project, it could easily have been tunnelled further south and used an offline tunnel portal and minimally disruptive tie-in.

tom1ie

CatInABox wrote: »

There was no costings required, as permission from Irish Water was required, and it was clear that no permission would be forthcoming.

This is a large diameter trunk sewer that runs directly to the Ringsend processing plant. It deals with sewage for a lot of south Dublin, along with Meath and Kildare I believe. Works on that sewage line could impact on a significant number of people, and quite frankly, our sewage system is barely able to cope as is.

It'd also have to move a significant distance, either north or south, as it'd still be in the way even if it was moved anywhere within the canal corridor.

Could it not be buried further down and then pumped back up towards ringsend?
This problem must have been come across and solved in other cities of the world previously.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

The originally proposed route of the Metrolink Green Line upgrade (the one that the public were shown in the first consultation) had a tunnel portal that did not disrupt the existing Green Line. There would have had to be work to tie-in the Metrolink line to the existing Green Line, but that's it. And history with Luas BXD has shown that it is possible to install a line tie-in very very quickly when they're at-grade.

That original Metrolink route was then scrapped between the first and second public consultations. This was due to the canal sewer main making the offline tunnel portal at Charlemont impossible.

Then political pressure over Dunville Avenue meant that the GL upgrade would have to retain the road without using a bridge of any sort - this coupled with budgetary concerns* meant that the only option was to surface the tunnel online with the existing Green Line, dig up the Green Line at Dunville Avenue, tunnel it under the road, and build an entirely new Beechwood station.

These two things are what increased the time that the Green Line would be closed, and this change happened between the public consultations.

Politicians who were briefed early on this (what I'll call the Interim Route) started leaking stuff to the press, which stirred up a whole lot of grief, and the NTA ultimately decided to can the Green Line upgrade entirely.

There was never a public consultation period where a long-term closure of the Green Line was ever on the table.

As for the possibilities of it being shorter, well this is a purely hypothetical exercise but have a look at the closure timeline for the Interim Route:



The original plan, the one that was presented in the initial public consultation and that promised closures in the range of months rather than years, would not require most of the "Beechwood portal construction" duration, nor would it need the new Luas Beechwood station or Metrolink Beechwood station portions.

The removal of the St Raphael's crossing was already explained as being constructed parallel to the existing Green Line and not disrupting the line (for anything other than tie-in installation).

So what are we left with? Well between the two remaining sections "MetroLink works" and "Green Line upgrade to MetroLink", only the following portions would lead to closures:

• Completion of Green Line upgrade works (3 months)
• Testing and commissioning (3 months)
• Trial running (3 months)

How long did the Red Line/Green Line crossover works take? I think maybe a couple of weeks or something? That's something that could have been scheduled to run in parallel with the Green Line upgrade works.

I would wager a lot of the testing, commissioning, and trial running could have been handled without widespread closures also.

In short, I think it was possible that the original plan we saw for MetroLink could have been built with only a few months worth of Green Line closures (as we were told at the time). What extended those closures was the inability to use the original plan's tunnel portal alignment, and the political demands to retain Dunville Avenue, combined with a lack of will to spend bigger on the project*.

*I say this because with a higher budget for the project, it could easily have been tunnelled further south and used an offline tunnel portal and minimally disruptive tie-in.

I think that once you start the upgrade works, running trams would be incompatible - that's kind of inevitable (e.g. with the measures facilitating driver only operation such as the new stop screens, and also the upgraded power supply) - sadly as a result I don't think you could do without the widespread closures. Testing takes time especially on railways and with good reason.

We can only hope that a sensible solution can be found that keeps them to a minimum.

Just as an addendum, I will say that I never saw the closure of Dunville Avenue as a runner politically from the outset. The moment I read it, I said to myself that it was going to go down like a lead balloon. But I did think that a bridge would have been an acceptable compromise (although that would need a long closure too). That option was shouted down by some locals, and I think that it's important to note that it wasn't all - just some reactionaries who got a lot more coverage than they should.

As we know, the sewer then stopped even that option from happening.

lbj666

tom1ie wrote: »

Could it not be buried further down and then pumped back up towards ringsend?
This problem must have been come across and solved in other cities of the world previously.

Its an 8ft diameter sewer (or is it 12ft), you are talking about pumping possibly half of the greater Dublin areas drainage up god knows what sort of height.Pumping it back up at ringsend means drilling another tunnel basically.
A local diversion under via pumpstation would mean another massive dig in the middle of town and a huge operating cost.
Not to mind keeping the drainage network live and at capacity during such the works. I would be a massive undertaking. I am sure solutions have been engineered elsewhere before but that's no reason to taking such a challenge on.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

The geometry available at the Marlborough Street/Abbey Street junction is such that a tram transfer from red line to green line cannot be done any other way than as you outline, but let's be honest that's a very niche requirement - it has barely ever been used.

They could have taken the east bound line to go towards SSG, rather than the one they did take which was a bizarre choice.

It would allow trams from Heuston to go to Sandyford and beyond. Heuston to Sandyford could be a popular routing.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

They could have taken the east bound line to go towards SSG, rather than the one they did take which was a bizarre choice.

It would allow trams from Heuston to go to Sandyford and beyond. Heuston to Sandyford could be a popular routing.

Much faster to take the green line to Harcourt and take the O bus to Heuston. Changing at O'Connell/Abbey for a trip to the west of the city is pure An Larism.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

They could have taken the east bound line to go towards SSG, rather than the one they did take which was a bizarre choice.

It would allow trams from Heuston to go to Sandyford and beyond. Heuston to Sandyford could be a popular routing.

Which option was a bizarre choice?

You’re not being very clear.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Which option was a bizarre choice?

You’re not being very clear.

The choice that requires the tram to reverse direction. Clearly it could not be done in passenger service.

The best choice would be to build the two separate Luas line into a network that would allow more than linear journeys with interchanges.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

The choice that requires the tram to reverse direction. Clearly it could not be done in passenger service.

The best choice would be to build the two separate Luas line into a network that would allow more than linear journeys with interchanges.

Re-read my original post. That “choice” didn’t exist.

There is physically not enough space to make such a connection between the two lines at the Marlborough Street / Abbey Street junction. The track geometry won’t allow it. You would have had to demolish protected buildings.

This is a complete non-issue.

It’s a 60-120 second walk between the stops if people want to change, while the 145 bus already does the journey from Heuston to SSG directly.

The current set up delivers a full service along the red line to Busaras, with some using Connolly to turn back keeping the higher service levels through the city centre.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Re-read my original post. That “choice” didn’t exist.

There is physically not enough space to make such a connection between the two lines at the Marlborough Street / Abbey Street junction. The track geometry won’t allow it. You would have had to demolish protected buildings.

This is a complete non-issue.

It’s a 60-120 second walk between the stops if people want to change, while the 145 bus already does the journey from Heuston to SSG directly.

The current set up delivers a full service along the red line to Busaras, with some using Connolly to turn back keeping the higher service levels through the city centre.

Well it is now.

Along with all the bad decisions made over the years. Like the refusal to go underground - as preferred by Garret the good. Or the decision be Mammy O'Rouke to delay the project for a few years while the Gov had a rethink.

Anyway, it is built and is very popular and well patronised to the extent it is jammed most of the time.

Wasn't the Becket bridge fitted with tracks to take the line south of the river?

Marcusm

tom1ie wrote: »

How much was the costings for re routing the sewer?
What size sewer are we dealing with?
What extensive works are we talking about here. It couldn’t be that complicated a job!

The main sewer alongside the canal bringing the waste of 100,000 or more people? I can see it as being capable of being moved irrespective of the available funds. Surfacing at Charlemont, IMO, was always a bad idea. The option to surface parallel to the green line in the lane behind Moyne Road (just at or beyond Beechwood) looks as if it would have been deliverable and did not require the loss of many dwellings (unlike say the apartment block in town).

Yellow_Fern

LXFlyer wrote: »

That is not helped by there not being one specialist transport journalist in the country who can refute the claims that the likes of Colm McCarthy make, or who know what questions to ask the operating companies and the NTA.

Unfortunately it means that a lot of spurious claims go unchallenged on all sides.

Which goes to show Colm McCarthy's high calibre and the low calibre of our journalists and I say this even though I disagree with him on his assessment.