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.
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.
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.
jvan wrote: » I would have thought from a fire safety point of view they'd have to have 2 exits.
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.
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)
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.
murphaph wrote: » Definitely not an EU regulation. Hundreds of unmanned underground stations across the EU.
jd wrote: » Artistic impressions of some stations have been addedhttps://www.metrolink.ie/#/Reports
Rulmeq wrote: » Love what they have proposed for Tara, but there would be war!
Qrt wrote: » Seems a bit bland, I'd rather some building... Also, no real interchange at Charlemont? Jaysus...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sam Russell wrote: » 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.
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)
Qrt wrote: » Where is the spoil going to?
