Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

  • 11-04-2019 6:30pm
    #1
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    As the other thread is reaching its limit of 10,000 posts, and in light of the announcement of the preferred route, this is the new thread for discussing the Metrolink scheme.

    Old thread here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055849587

    This is for discussing the current active plan for a Metro between Swords and Charlemont. Only. Discussion of the planned Metro South connection to the Green Line will be in this thread:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057972047


«134567…123

Comments

  • #2
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Think you made a wee mistake with the two links on the old thread Marno. They both link to this thread


  • #3
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    salmocab wrote: »
    Think you made a wee mistake with the two links on the old thread Marno. They both link to this thread

    They both work ok for me :confused:


  • #4
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,408 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    marno21 wrote: »
    They both work ok for me :confused:

    They both brought me to the same place, had to click on the link above to get the south bit


  • #5
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    Both going to the same place for me too


  • #6
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    Any chance they’ll put a subway at the Ballymun station? It’d be nice to be able to avoid crossing the road.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Dats me
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    Qrt wrote: »
    Any chance they’ll put a subway at the Ballymun station? It’d be nice to be able to avoid crossing the road.


    They're actually building a 19km subway from Swords to Charlemont as part of the project!


  • #8
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Qrt wrote: »
    Any chance they’ll put a subway at the Ballymun station? It’d be nice to be able to avoid crossing the road.

    The term subway is used in the UK, we call them pedestrian underpasses and there used be one in ballymun which was a hotbed of muggings and ASB so probably isn’t a good idea.


  • #9
    prunudo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Qrt wrote: »
    Any chance they’ll put a subway at the Ballymun station? It’d be nice to be able to avoid crossing the road.

    A meat ball footlong would be handy while you're waiting for the lights to change :D


  • #10
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    spacetweek wrote: »
    The term subway is used in the UK, we call them pedestrian underpasses and there used be one in ballymun which was a hotbed of muggings and ASB so probably isn’t a good idea.
    Looks like there will be a de facto one at Northwood up the road. (I think it will be tag on/off without turnstiles)


    477620.jpg


  • #11
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    jd wrote: »
    Looks like there will be a de facto one at Northwood up the road. (I think it will be tag on/off without turnstiles)

    Haven't looked at the station designs for there, or if they're looking to go barrier free entry, but I'd imagine that even with a barrier in place, there will be enough room for a pedestrian through way there.

    I.e. the first level is an open corridor, and if you want to go down to the platforms, then you go through the barrier, otherwise you just go around.

    EDIT: Took a look at the Northwood station appendix:
    The Preferred Route proposal is to pull it south of the Retail Park so that it will now sit directly under and at an angle to the junction of the R108 and Northwood Avenue - the Park entrance. This will allow passengers to access the station from either side of the R108 and pedestrians to cross the R108 through the station without having to cross a busy road.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    How they work natural light into the stations will be interesting, in that way it'll be quite a unique metro. Is there a link somewhere I missed to station designs or artist impressions?


  • #13
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    spacetweek wrote: »
    The term subway is used in the UK, we call them pedestrian underpasses and there used be one in ballymun which was a hotbed of muggings and ASB so probably isn’t a good idea.


    The best deterent to anti-social behaviour is if it's heavily used and lots of people are around. With a busy Metro station, hotel, shopping centre and housing around there shouldn't be an issue having an underpass.


  • #14
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    The best deterent to anti-social behaviour is if it's heavily used and lots of people are around. With a busy Metro station, hotel, shopping centre and housing around there shouldn't be an issue having an underpass.

    Also a plentiful number of Revenue protection personnel would help, particularly if they go for barrier free access.


  • #15
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    While we're on the subject, would be worth considering having a direct tunnel from the Collins Avenue stop direct to the DCU campus?


  • #16
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    While we're on the subject, would be worth considering having a direct tunnel from the Collins Avenue stop direct to the DCU campus?

    How far is it?


  • #17
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    How far is it?


    As the crow flies about 500 metres; walking about 900, although it depends exactly where in the campus you're going. Just seems to be a long about route to get to either main gates.


  • #18
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    While we're on the subject, would be worth considering having a direct tunnel from the Collins Avenue stop direct to the DCU campus?
    The only way to build such a tunnel would be cut and cover. The ability to this implies that there is a clear route all the way, in which case, a surface path would be better in every respect.


  • #19
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The only way to build such a tunnel would be cut and cover. The ability to this implies that there is a clear route all the way, in which case, a surface path would be better in every respect.


    Really? Is there no other why to create a pedestrian tunnel in this day and age? It would be a nice feature but probably not worth it if it's too much hassle.


  • #20
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I find the O'Connell st station very interesting how it is integrated into the shopping centre, certainly a great boost for a neglected part of the City, also getting from the airport to a City Centre shopping centre without going outside would be quite the novelty.


  • #21
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,979 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    cgcsb wrote: »
    How they work natural light into the stations will be interesting, in that way it'll be quite a unique metro. Is there a link somewhere I missed to station designs or artist impressions?

    The appendix has some rough plans, but they don't seem finalised.

    Many seem to include sky lights over the length of top of the station to leave light down.
    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    Really? Is there no other why to create a pedestrian tunnel in this day and age? It would be a nice feature but probably not worth it if it's too much hassle.

    You could possibly mine one out, but would be very expensive, so probably a non runner.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    I find the O'Connell st station very interesting how it is integrated into the shopping centre, certainly a great boost for a neglected part of the City, also getting from the airport to a City Centre shopping centre without going outside would be quite the novelty.

    Yes, it will be great. Novel for us, but quiet common with Metros around Europe to be built into shopping centers or even hotels.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    Really? Is there no other why to create a pedestrian tunnel in this day and age? It would be a nice feature but probably not worth it if it's too much hassle.
    You would be working at a depth to avoid affecting the foundations of houses and with such a small bore, nothing else is feasible.


  • #23
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I find the O'Connell st station very interesting how it is integrated into the shopping centre, certainly a great boost for a neglected part of the City, also getting from the airport to a City Centre shopping centre without going outside would be quite the novelty.
    It would also be great if the OCS station was also accessible from Parnell Street which would make it easier to get to the Rotunda, DIT Bolton Street, future city library, etc. This can easily be facilitated by having a pedestrian route through the new development to Moore Lane.


  • #24
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    It would also be great if the OCS station was also accessible from Parnell Street which would make it easier to get to the Rotunda, DIT Bolton Street, future city library, etc. This can easily be facilitated by having a pedestrian route through the new development to Moore Lane.

    Also access to Moore St would be appreciated and I think that will be the case, permeability is important for these developments


  • #25
    LongboardPro
    Registered Users Posts: 74 ✭✭LongboardPro


    Does anyone else think there should be more than one entrance to the stations wherever possible? A lot of the stations only have one entry / exit which seems stupid.


  • #26
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    LongboardPro wrote: »
    Does anyone else think there should be more than one entrance to the stations wherever possible? A lot of the stations only have one entry / exit which seems stupid.

    Cost based, I would think.


  • #27
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Cost based, I would think.
    Massive false economy nevertheless. You can effectively increase the catchment area significantly by having multiple exits to street level.


  • #28
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    murphaph wrote: »
    Massive false economy nevertheless. You can effectively increase the catchment area significantly by having multiple exits to street level.

    There's only arguably 3 stations where that is an important consideration imo - SSG, Tara, and OCS. They should probably make OCS permeable to Moore Street, Tara does have 2 exits, and maybe SSG could do with a south entrance, but it wouldn't add too much in terms of catchment.

    Everywhere else, I'd argue it's unnecessary, because they're all suburban stations that you're likely to already to be traveling further to reach anyway, so a couple dozen extra metres isn't going to deter you.


  • #29
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    murphaph wrote: »
    Massive false economy nevertheless. You can effectively increase the catchment area significantly by having multiple exits to street level.

    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.


  • #30
    CarlosHarpic
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 108 ✭✭CarlosHarpic


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    prunudo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    LongboardPro wrote: »
    Does anyone else think there should be more than one entrance to the stations wherever possible? A lot of the stations only have one entry / exit which seems stupid.

    I would have thought from a fire safety point of view they'd have to have 2 exits.


  • #32
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    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.


  • #33
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    CarlosHarpic wrote: »
    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.


  • #34
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.


  • #35
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    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.


  • #36
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    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)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    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.


  • #38
    Dats me
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    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.


  • #39
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    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


  • #40
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    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.


  • #41
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


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


  • #43
    Rulmeq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    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!


  • #44
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    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...


  • #45
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    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


  • #46
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    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.


  • #47
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,427 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    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.


  • #48
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    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.


  • #49
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,427 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    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.


  • #50
    Qrt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭Qrt


    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


  • #51
    jd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,709 ✭✭✭jd


    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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement