Metrolink - Alternative Routes - See post one for restrictions.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123562710#Comment_123562710

Perhaps you weren't there at rush hour time?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123562710#Comment_123562710

It is not possible to build a metro tunnel 'gradually' because the spoil has to go back along the tunnel. So, perhaps a bit of BusConnects might be the solution, followed by a bit of Luas - both of which could be introduced 'gradually'.

Of course, given how fast the current planning system is, these projects would happen 'gradually'. Metro North had planning (a RO) 17 years ago, and the Metrolink still awaits a RO, which has yet to progress to Judicial Review, which will 'gradually' progress through the Four Courts. No indication is given by anyone just how 'gradual' that will be.

I do not think Ireland does 'gradually' very well - particularly when it comes to infrastructure, unless you mean 'slowly' or at a 'glacial pace'.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563247#Comment_123563247

Sam, it absolutely is possible. And my first experience of underground rail construction - the extension of the U5 from Implerstrasse in Munich to somewhere beyond - showed that.

If building to the southwest of Dublin, I think you'd go initially to Rathmines, with a station there, somewhere around St. Mary's College. Tunnelling would continue, if available funds allow, with spoil being removed via St. Mary's College and Cathal Brugha Barracks to waiting boats on the canal.

That's just an illustration of how it might be done. I like that one.

Then, when the TBM and the associated workers have done their bit on the section between Rathmines and, say, Rathfarnham, you open that next part for metro services.

salmocab

spoil down the canal that’s a belter, all the materials back up too. It would be so slow it would make the planning part look efficient.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563399#Comment_123563399

Your idea of "possible" rarely is.

This is an incredible example of that.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123562754#Comment_123562754

That's certainly possible.

My initial post, in this section of the discussion, was to point out that the travel into town from Sandyford, in the late afternoon, seemed to be weak, and in no way balancing the travel out of the city.

An overall point I would make is that there are ways of massively increasing the throughput along the Green Line. I am in favour of having a complete LUAS circuit of St. Stephen's Green, to facilitate future development of LUAS, to many areas. It wouldn't be difficult to then build, say, a Peter Place - Adelaide Road - Earlsfort Terrace - St. Stephen's Green arrangement for the LUAS. A line to/from Grand Canal Dock is one I would favour.

I have been hauled up by the moderators here, several times, for even suggesting that 30 tph is doable in Dublin. Of course it is, with proper management. It's demonstrably doable, and happening, in many European cities. I even saw 32, recently.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563399#Comment_123563399

My understanding of 'gradual' would be doing a few stations every so often. You cannot do that with a tunnel. It is not even possible with a Luas service, but they are doing their best with that - first with the cross city extension, and now out to Finglas, and out to Bray, but it is expensive to do it a bit every decade.

Extending Metrolink would be best done by using an overground route. I think they have thought of that and might try that at some time. Perhaps due South - it might be possible to use an old railway line - but we will see.

KrisW1001

(Leaving aside tunnels which have very high setup and teardown costs), it is indeed expensive to do a bit every decade, but it's much cheaper to do a little every year or two. Keeping the pipeline of work going means you don't need to repeat the very long process of creating a delivery resource (design, legal, procurement, PM..) and you can interleave phases so that planning delays for the next phase are happening while this one is being built.

Extending the current ML tunnel in a different direction, if that ends up being the plan, will be done by starting from above ground at the end of the new route and excavating toward the current subterranean endpoint.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563430#Comment_123563430

Well, it's just a thought, as a way of removing without clogging up streets with trucks, a part of construction towards the southwest. The Grand Canal is underutilised, and it might be a way to bring the spoil to the Midlands, where it might be needed for whatever reason, or towards the sea.

I think it could be very effective.

bk

There is a big difference between trying to phase a project and continuous development of a pipeline of projects.

Trying to phase underground projects just doesn't work. In NY they are currently building a 1.8km extension to the subway and it is coming out at more then $4 Billion per mile!

On the other hand having a pipeline of projects to work on makes a lot of sense. That is what we did in the 2000's with Motorways, we had a pipeline of planned Motorway projects and when the planning of one finished the team just moved onto the next one.

For public transport, that would look like us having a pipeline of Luas projects. Finish on the Finglas Luas, work on the Cork Luas, finish that, work on the Lucan Luas, finished that, Poolbeg extension, then onto the 2050 planned Luas lines.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563789#Comment_123563789

Sorry, that should have been

Well, it's just a thought, as a way of removing spoil without clogging up streets with trucks, as part of construction towards the southwest. The Grand Canal is underutilised, and it might be a way to bring the spoil to the Midlands, where it might be needed for whatever reason, or towards the sea.

I think it could be very effective.

(My 'S' on the keyboard seems to be giving trouble)

riddlinrussell

You also don't seem to be aware you have a day to edit your posts?

I'm a little lost now on this thread, are we discussing alternative routes for the existing plan, alternative routes for any extension of the route, or routings for a second metro line?

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563822#Comment_123563822

without putting much thought into this the loading would be massively disruptive as the canal has roads beside it that are already quite busy, the barges going through locks in both directions would be extremely slow and I’d be very surprised if it could keep up with the demands of a TBM. Also the concrete sections would need to be brought up from presumably the docks regularly during the work day and off loaded and trucked to the tunnel start. There must be 5/6 locks just between Rathmines and the Liffey and no idea how many toward the midlands.
I know you pride yourself on thinking of things others can’t see but using the canal is fantasy stuff.

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563815#Comment_123563815

Two cities which I know well, Frankfurt and Munich, built their underground networks in stages, and both are very fine, Munich particularly so. Frankfurt built its 'citytunnel', which hosts 7 S-Bahn lines, underground in four stages.

You can certainly find examples where sequential underground building doesn't work, but equally you can find those where it does and has. The above two are just the first that sprang to my mind.

spillit67

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123563549#Comment_123563549

But quite clearly Sandyford will generally have more people coming inbound at that time than any other route than maybe Metrolink itself given the airport.

Sandyford will soon not be far off the total number of workers as Galway City has. What other area outside of the city core gets close to that?

Brightlights66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123569901#Comment_123569901

I certainly do not suggest that you are wrong re Sandyford and Galway, but you need to back up your claim, with numbers, and provide a source where such figures can be examined.

Kermit.de.frog

I have a question about the station designs for this.

I used the Copenhagen metro a while a go and while it's a nice little system the stations felt very small and cramped and it used short 3 car trains (and often didn't have escalators for the station entrance sections - the ones I used anyway).

I looked it up and apparently the platform lengths are just 54 meters in Copenhagen. The fixed station platform door panels don't do the sense of space any good either.

The much vaunted station sky lights weren't that effective a feature I thought and if they weren't there you'd hardly care.

Overall compared to other underground metro system stations I found the Copenhagen ones pretty drab, minimalist and boring tbh.

I'm definitely nitpicking but all the stations are exactly the same - very basic. The carriages are super basic too but I don't mind that.

Since apparently the design for the Dublin line leans somewhat on the Copenhagen system I'd actually be a little bit disappointed if they just copied and pasted it.

Does anyone know what the differences would be between the two systems in terms of design, platform length, number of carriages etc?

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579602#Comment_123579602

Metrolink will use 64m long trains, so the platforms will be longer and thus slightly more spacious.

While the stations certainly won't be anything like the size of a London Underground station and they have a straight forward design, the photo montages certainly make them look nice IMO.

They seem to use lots of glass, natural light, greenery, green roofs, timber effect the looks quiet nice IMO.

Above ground station:

It will definitely be the case that you won't want to spend much time at the station, but that is by design, with trains every 90 seconds, there shouldn't really be a need.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579642#Comment_123579642

Thanks, good to see they would be a bit spacier. I think with the Copehagen system it's a combination of the small platform and the fixed platform doors that doesn't do it much favours in terms of space perception for me (it felt small and cramped) but I understand the benefits of the doors too.

Also as I mentioned most stations in Copenagen I used didn't actually have escalators to the entrance, only around 2/3rds of the way, which was a bit baffling.

But yeah the proposal here does look a bit more lavish in some ways.

KrisW1001

One big difference is that all of the Metro stations will be built as a pair of platforms, one each side of the tracks. Copenhagen’s standard design uses a single “island” platform set between the tracks, shared by all passengers. The Dublin design is a little more expensive (the station has to be wider, with twice the number of escalators down to the platforms), but it makes the platforms less crowded, and the total platform area is greater. Dublin’s platforms will also be a little longer, as @bk already noted.

Island platforms can create capacity problems at very busy stations, as lots of people getting off a train have to move around not just the people waiting to get on, but also those waiting for the opposite-direction train, so I’m happy Dublin spent a little more to future-proof the system.

In all other respects, MetroLink is based heavily on the Copenhagen system. Choice of materials and use of lighting matters a lot, though. Personally, I’d like to see a follow-up public art project to give each station its own unique appearance. It looks better, and it also helps people find their way more easily: if you can’t see the station-name sign you still know where you are by the artwork.

riddlinrussell

Ireland has been decent on public art when it comes to the motorway network, it would be great to see similar projects not just for the metro but also for DART and Luas stops.

Kermit.de.frog

They do have different colour schemes and art on each station in Copenhagen but it's not really effective because the art tends to be as minimalist as the stations.

The single biggest issue is the rectangular box look on every station. You know you are in a box. There is nothing interesting about it architecturally. It also feels cheap and, yes that come material, space perception and pallette.

I'm very happy to see the Dublin stations won't make this mistake as planned through the use of angled sidewalls internally which should at least give visual interest and identity. I have a picture below. Would make a big difference IMO so I hope that's the end result.

Don't get me wrong Copenhagen is a nice effective system and easy to use but it most certainly is not a €15bn looking system. We need to get a good bit more for that money.

spillit67

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579576#Comment_123579576

The BC file is posted here.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580572#Comment_123580572

The public art on the road network was under the old "1% For Art" scheme. The limits on that scheme have been curtailed as the cost of construction accelerated beyond the cost of typical art installations.

The amended scheme (Per Cent for Art) would appear to limit any public art on MetroLink to €500,000 in total. That sounds like a lot, but it’s only around €30k per station, which won’t pay for large works in any long-lasting medium (ceramics, metal castings or mosaic).

However, in the current political climate, this limit may be a good thing. You know the sort who’d complain that Metro is “expensive enough as it is” and demand that it be built in drab, bare concrete, simply because they don’t imagine themselves ever using public transport…

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580500#Comment_123580500

One big difference is that all of the Metro stations will be built as a pair of platforms, one each side of the tracks. Copenhagen’s standard design uses a single “island” platform set between the tracks, shared by all passengers.

However there is a downside of Dublin's single bore tunnel. Copenhagen Metro operates 24/7 because it has two tunnels and can close one for maintenance, while keeping the other open. I'm not sure Dublin will be able to operate 24/7 with the single bore tunnel approach.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123580881#Comment_123580881

Well, the Port Tunnel closes for maintenance one night every so often - like once a month, usually a Thursday. [Not sure of the details but have been caught out regularly]. So double tunnels still require closure for maintenance.

Regular maintenance would not be a problem. Dart does its maintenance at night - Midnight to 5 AM quite regularly. They even close large sections on long weekends.

If it runs 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, then that is fine. Even the occasional closure for a weekend would be OK.

At the moment there is no Metro.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123581576#Comment_123581576

Dart does its maintenance at night - Midnight to 5 AM quite regularly. They even close large sections on long weekends.

This, while understandable, is generally a massive inconvenience though. The Metro closing on long weekends would be catastrophic given the inevitable reliance that will develop on it. Imagine people not being able to get to the airport for long weekends? The DART situation is not something that should be envisioned as acceptable for new, modern transport links.

Zebra3

It’s inconceivable that ML would close for BH weekends given that it will serve the airport.

L1011

The DART line is 192 years old in parts too, with all the maintenance overhead that brings

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123581617#Comment_123581617

Well, maybe they will not need to close it for a protracted period before the second rail connection to the airport is opened.

I would expect that a four hour window for maintenance nightly would cover it in the meantime.