Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Mod: Can I echo those thoughts.

This thread is about Metrolink. It is for information on how it is progressing.

It is not about how it was not built three decades ago, and how it will not be built in three decades time. If you think it is interesting to knock this project then start a new thread, but do not pollute this one with such posts. They will be deleted.

strassenwo!f

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the tunnel went west of the current line and approached /beechwood from the west and connected just south of Beechwood, there is a piece of land that would allow that. There is no need for any stops between Cowper and SSG as it just 2.3 km, but Cowper is only .5 km from Beechwood. If a stop is needed it could be at Mount Pleasant Sq.

The tunnel portal would require a bit of CPO around Beechwood which might be a problem.

It would mean that Beechwood would be the end of the Green Line, but an extension along Adelaide RD would make sense, with perhaps 60% of trams going that way, eventually extended to GCD.

I think it would also help if we did not have posts, like the above, presenting crayon plans which are quite clearly outside of the 'Swords to Charlemont' limitations specifically mentioned in the title of this thread. These clutter up the thread.

There is already a long thread called 'Dublin metrolink - alternative routes' which is the main repository for crayon ideas which are (to a greater or lesser extent) related to the metro.

gjim

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think it would also help if we did not have posts, like the above, presenting crayon plans which are quite clearly outside of the 'Swords to Charlemont' limitations specifically mentioned in the title of this thread. These clutter up the thread.

There is already a long thread called 'Dublin metrolink - alternative routes' which is the main repository for crayon ideas which are (to a greater or lesser extent) related to the metro.

I don't agree. There's a huge difference in relevence between generic politician bashing for lack of PT prioritisation and discussion on how the southern end of the ML terminates.

So while I don't agree with Sam Russell - I think a 2.3km gap along this section is a huge disadvantage to what he is suggesting and I think the disruption both to locals and to Green Luas operations will be worse. At the same time, I think this is as good a thread as any for him to make his point. This has a huge bearing on the future utility of the line.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think it would also help if we did not have posts, like the above, presenting crayon plans which are quite clearly outside of the 'Swords to Charlemont' limitations specifically mentioned in the title of this thread. These clutter up the thread.

There is already a long thread called 'Dublin metrolink - alternative routes' which is the main repository for crayon ideas which are (to a greater or lesser extent) related to the metro.

I accept your point but in my defence, the end of the line is planned to be Charlemont, at which there is no possibility of an interchange for transfer from GL to Metrolink. It would be better to terminate at SSG East, and continue the tunnel west approaching south of Beechwood from the west. What happens after that, and any intermediate stops is a matter for the other thread.

CatInABox

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1181483168240721920

More consultations. Local changes. FFS.

MrAbyss

CatInABox wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1181483168240721920

More consultations. Local changes. FFS.

But, but...this time it is different!

https://twitter.com/Dub324/status/1181487064023519233?s=20

CatInABox wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1181483168240721920

More consultations. Local changes. FFS.

Can we get another consultation for the pets in the area that might be effected by the noise etc too ?

Residents of Griffith Avenue have released a statement stating they would have preferred this announcement was made on Thursday, and they should have been consulted.

Nidgeweasel

Fairly embarrassing.

Peregrine

CatInABox wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1181483168240721920

More consultations. Local changes. FFS.

MrAbyss

jd wrote: »

Residents of Griffith Avenue have released a statement stating they would have preferred this announcement was made on Thursday, and they should have been consulted.

Times like these I wish Ireland was a dictatorship.

CatInABox

Somebody already asked the relevant question that I was going to:

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1181536975402229760

Mild anger dissipating. All for a quick consultation if it means it all goes smoother overall.

Qrt

CatInABox wrote: »

Somebody already asked the relevant question that I was going to:

https://twitter.com/MetroLink_ie/status/1181536975402229760

Mild anger dissipating. All for a quick consultation if it means it all goes smoother overall.

I hope the name of Glasnevin station is one of them.

marno21

It seems to be minor stuff, just ironing out issues now rather than letting it get to ABP first. If it speeds up the statutory planning process, all the better.

MJohnston

Did anyone dig into the Metrolink docs enough to figure out how long the estimate was for the online upgrade of the Green Line to Metro standard? Not including any time it would take for tie-in works for a tunnel that is.

CatInABox

MJohnston wrote: »

Did anyone dig into the Metrolink docs enough to figure out how long the estimate was for the online upgrade of the Green Line to Metro standard? Not including any time it would take for tie-in works for a tunnel that is.

The Beechwood option? Four years, give or take, for the entire project.

Click to see a bigger version. The Green Line Constructability report is actually quite the concise read. They suggest that a year may be shaved off the time, but no more.

MJohnston

CatInABox wrote: »

The Beechwood option? Four years, give or take, for the entire project.

No, not exactly, more like what if they were to just upgrade the surface Green Line between Ranelagh and Sandyford to Metro standard, and leave it completely disconnected from the underground Metro North section.

Obviously this would be very unlikely, as turnbacks would be necessary somewhere around the north end of that surface section.

It's hard to tell from that chart as everything is kind of interwoven, but arguably they could do something like that with minimised disruption, in about a year?

Pete_Cavan

Won't it only take that long if the tunnel portal is online of the existing line? If the tunnel portal was offline then only a simple tie-in would be needed which could be done in weeks.

MJohnston

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Won't it only take that long if the tunnel portal is online of the existing line? If the tunnel portal was offline then only a simple tie-in would be needed which could be done in weeks.

There's that, but I think that chart also includes the sop to the Rethink idiots about retaining Dunville Avenue and doing a cut and cover with a new Beechwood station?

The whole project south of SSG has needed a rethink since the discovery of the sewer at Charlemont scuppered the original preferred route. There appears to be an attempt at a route that causes least opposition than one that gets the best route, and causes the least disruption to the GL.

The current idea appears to keep the ML line underneath the GL, then breakout south of Beechwood, resulting in years of disruption.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The whole project south of SSG has needed a rethink since the discovery of the sewer at Charlemont scuppered the original preferred route. There appears to be an attempt at a route that causes least opposition than one that gets the best route, and causes the least disruption to the GL.

The current idea appears to keep the ML line underneath the GL, then breakout south of Beechwood, resulting in years of disruption.

Your right it does need a rethink BUT at this stage anything that slows the project will be a disaster.

salmocab wrote: »

Your right it does need a rethink BUT at this stage anything that slows the project will be a disaster.

Which is why they should only go as far as SSG with a blind tunnel heading towards Charlemont to allow turnback. They can plan and get other things needed while the TBM makes its way from the Airport. By the time it gets to SSG, they will have it all worked out.

Meanwhile, they can sort out St Raephaella's Road crossing.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Which is why they should only go as far as SSG with a blind tunnel heading towards Charlemont to allow turnback. They can plan and get other things needed while the TBM makes its way from the Airport. By the time it gets to SSG, they will have it all worked out.

Meanwhile, they can sort out St Raephaella's Road crossing.

Now Sam we all know once the TBM is turned off it isn’t starting up again. It’s a camel of a tie in or it’s nothing.

salmocab wrote: »

Now Sam we all know once the TBM is turned off it isn’t starting up again. It’s a camel of a tie in or it’s nothing.

I realise that but the TBM takes about a year or two to get from Swords to SSG, so a new design can be ready before it gets there. The contract would need to be flexible, but it can be done. The tunnel distance would be about the same wherever they go south of Charlemont.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I realise that but the TBM takes about a year or two to get from Swords to SSG, so a new design can be ready before it gets there. The contract would need to be flexible, but it can be done. The tunnel distance would be about the same wherever they go south of Charlemont.

Oh these things can be done just not by our legislators. Look how long it’s taken to get where we are there is not a snowballs chance that this could be started without the end being a known.

on a project of this scale, is it not a bad insane that a SEWER, a SEWER is causing an insurmountable probblem? Look at the programmes on crossrail in london, the problem solving was in insane! How the fcuk can a sewer cause so many problems? or is it the fact that its an irish sewer, thats creating the problem? :rolleyes:

D.L.R. wrote: »

It can't be done. Not in Ireland. Best you can hope for is phase 1 to SSG and pilot tunnel pointing south ready for phase 2. Which may yet happen.

obviously there is the cost to consider, would it be more politically palatable to break it up into two project (even if at a greater cost) and do phase 1 from north of swords to SSG and then as a next phase out to UCD or wherever and tie them in there?

Idbatterim wrote: »

obviously there is the cost to consider, would it be more politically palatable to break it up into two project (even if at a greater cost) and do phase 1 from north of swords to SSG and then as a next phase out to UCD or wherever and tie them in there?

If the tbm is stopped and restarted all the spoil has to be extracted in the city and all the materials put in in the city. That’s logistically a nightmare.

D.L.R.

Idbatterim wrote: »

obviously there is the cost to consider, would it be more politically palatable to break it up into two project (even if at a greater cost) and do phase 1 from north of swords to SSG and then as a next phase out to UCD or wherever and tie them in there?

That seems quite likely now. Bit daft to waste the Green line on a low capacity tram instead of the high capacity rail its designed for, but that's Fianna Fail's fault for building it on the cheap during the greatest boom in our history.

Then again if the morons in Ralenagh don't want a high capacity metro line that will reduce road traffic and raise property values, then just send it elsewhere I guess.