nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

D.L.R.

Idbatterim wrote: »

why dont they simply remove seating from one module of the tram for example? would that not create a lot of extra space at peak times? A 55m tram could then take what conceivably? 450 passengers?

Some improvement can be made, but its still a smaller, slower vehicle that goes onto the street. There's no way it can ever be a substitute for a proper metro.

Longer trams are a daft solution as they clog up the streets and block junctions.

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

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.

Well, yes.

However, they could have an agreement that encompasses the extension of the tunnel because they have to get t out of the ground.

However, that might be beyond them.

salmocab

Idbatterim wrote: »

why dont they simply remove seating from one module of the tram for example? would that not create a lot of extra space at peak times? A 55m tram could then take what conceivably? 450 passengers?

The seating is over the wheels if you took out the seats the wheel arches would still be there so there wouldn’t be much extra space. That’s why high floors make more sense.

CatInABox

Idbatterim wrote: »

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:

In fairness, it's not just a sewer, it's a trunk sewer, brings an enormous amount out to Ringsend. Diverting it isn't really possible due to our otherwise decrepit sewage system.

This sewer meant the Metrolink tunnel couldn't rise beneath the canal, which impacts on where the tunnel portal could be. Either they move it north of the canal, which isn't really possible, or further south. They've chosen further south, but to also delay the pain of doing it.

Eventually, once Metrolink is operational, and the capacity enhancements that they'll do to the Green Line are no longer working, they'll just have to put a tunnel portal in. They'll use the intervening years to figure out a way to reduce the length of the Luas closure, perhaps even come up with a plan that involves no closure but significant CPO activity. After all, at that stage, way more people will be using the Green Line.

Idbatterim

salmocab wrote: »

The seating is over the wheels if you took out the seats the wheel arches would still be there so there wouldn’t be much extra space. That’s why high floors make more sense.

yeah assumed there was a valid reason for it. figured that might be the case or it would have been done elsewhere.

salmocab

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah assumed there was a valid reason for it. figured that might be the case or it would have been done elsewhere.

It’s why they are talking of high floor for the metro as it’s a flat floor front to back with probably benches along the wall like the most underground’s. much higher capacity that way plus they are to be a bit wider than the luas and hopefully no driver which is a bit extra at each end.

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

why dont they simply remove seating from one module of the tram for example? would that not create a lot of extra space at peak times? A 55m tram could then take what conceivably? 450 passengers?

The few completely suspended modules have close to no seating already. Take a look at a tram passing next time to see where the wheels; and hence the motors are

The 3000/4000s have even more stuff under the floor than the 5000s - they don't have fully flat floors throughout.

Marcusm

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.

They had the answer in the earlier proposals where it rises at Beechwood parallel to the existing line (loss of a small number of houses and apartments, temporary loss of gardens on Moyne Road) followed by a tie in south of Beechwood. This would be much less disruptive than an inline tie in south of Beechwood.

Dats me

Marcusm wrote: »

They had the answer in the earlier proposals where it rises at Beechwood parallel to the existing line (loss of a small number of houses and apartments, temporary loss of gardens on Moyne Road) followed by a tie in south of Beechwood. This would be much less disruptive than an inline tie in south of Beechwood.

I reckon there are issues other than disruption (cost maybe?) that the GL upgrade was "postponed" which means it you picked this option you couldn't CPO now, but also 50 houses or whatever it was would be in limbo for ag s without being able to sell or anything really. That's the only reason I can think of not to to the "out-line" option, I totally agree makes much more sense

Marcusm

It certainly wasn’t as many as 50 houses; there was an additional cost but I expect that the greater space available for the dig out together with the reduced period of disruption would have meant that there was greater certainty as regards costs/delivery. The current proposal for the tunnel to continue down between Ranelagh/Beechwood as a turnback space will effectively preclude this in the future - it will be next to impossible to make it a “dig out” rather than passing the material back down the tunnel as would be possible before it’s commissioned.

As regards the proposals to start and change the contract later - that’s why we have a lot of the cost overrun on Children’s Hospital. A failure to plan and then open yourself up for a drilling by the contractor.

Sam Russell

Marcusm wrote: »

As regards the proposals to start and change the contract later - that’s why we have a lot of the cost overrun on Children’s Hospital. A failure to plan and then open yourself up for a drilling by the contractor.

Well, it could be built into the project from the tender point, specifying the cost for tunnelling as far as Beechwood for example. The exact route to be determined at the point that the tunnel digging reached Glasnevin, say.

The main thing is to avoid the 'that'll be extra' from the contractor.

CatInABox

I think that having a contract that is subject to change is insane. In my opinion, it's best to just stick with the current plan, get it built, and then figure out the next steps afterwards when people are clamouring for more Metrolinks.

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

I think that having a contract that is subject to change is insane. In my opinion, it's best to just stick with the current plan, get it built, and then figure out the next steps afterwards when people are clamouring for more Metrolinks.

I agree, any deviation now would kick this further down the road. It’s not perfect and the tie in is storing up trouble but that can be dealt with then because to deal with it now will either kill or put back years the project.

Sam Russell

CatInABox wrote: »

I think that having a contract that is subject to change is insane. In my opinion, it's best to just stick with the current plan, get it built, and then figure out the next steps afterwards when people are clamouring for more Metrolinks.

The only element to be changed is the exact route of the tunnel south of SSG, not its length, nor its depth. That should not change the cost.

Now the ML project have said they will be using the Dart voltage on the Metro. [1500VDC] I wonder could they be looking at using the Irish gauge? They (well it was Lord Ross of Churchtown) did suggest that they would be 'ripping up the GL tracks' which would cause a four year delay.

If they did, they could extend to Donabate, and run metro trains up the line towards Drogheda or as far as they think it might be worth doing. [Obviously only the odd train in busy times].

It would be a big call, and probably unlikely.

Last Stop

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only element to be changed is the exact route of the tunnel south of SSG, not its length, nor its depth. That should not change the cost.

Now the ML project have said they will be using the Dart voltage on the Metro. [1500VDC] I wonder could they be looking at using the Irish gauge? They (well it was Lord Ross of Churchtown) did suggest that they would be 'ripping up the GL tracks' which would cause a four year delay.

If they did, they could extend to Donabate, and run metro trains up the line towards Drogheda or as far as they think it might be worth doing. [Obviously only the odd train in busy times].

It would be a big call, and probably unlikely.

The contractor would tear you a new one if you started with an undefined route. If I was asked to build it in that scenario, I’d price it at 1c from Estuary to SSG. Then when they finally make up their mind on which direction it’s going I’d price €10bn for the final km. No final km, no metro...
Besides that obviously issue, you can not complete your EIA without a finalised route. How could you assess the impacts on the majority of south inner city

As regards using Irish Gauge that definitely not going to happen. Those who suggested “tearing up the green line” were scaremongering. The green line was designed with wider metro trains in mind.

Going with Irish Gauge now would be lunacy for countless reasons including:
- Interaction with Irish Rail who are difficult to deal with
- Metro is GOA4 which means it can’t mix with other lines
- The platform levels may be different
- The tunnel and station may change size. Yes the vehicles are the same width but the tracks are further apart
- The addition of several km to the line
- It would take 4 years to upgrade the green line in future
- Loading would be different
- All of the reasons why the original Luas didn’t use Irish Gauge.

L1011

They will not be using Irish gauge, Ross was deluded (as always) and playing to his constituency (as always)

Why in gods name would anyone want the Metro to use Irish Gauge?!!

Look at how much trouble Irish Rail has trying to order new trains because of the unique gauge. By comparison, look at how relatively easy it has been for the NTA to buy new Luas trams due to them being an off the shelf order that is used throughout Europe.

The Luas has proven the benefit of going with standard off the shelf systems.

marno21

Tender out for Property Owners Protection Scheme

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/rwlentrance_s.asp?PID=154987&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1

Dats me

Does anyone have a clue about how the project's going?

CatInABox

Dats me wrote: »

Does anyone have a clue about how the project's going?

Overall? Seems to be progressing well, even if I'd prefer it to go a little faster. Another public consultation is coming soon, this is meant to be relatively minor and short. Environmental Impact Assessment will be soon after that, and then it's off to ABP for consideration.

No idea how long that'll take.

Idbatterim

The public are such experts , could we not save a lot of time and expense by using them to design the network ?

We wouldn’t even need a public consultation then !

marno21

Idbatterim wrote: »

The public are such experts , could we not save a lot of time and expense by using them to design the network ?

We wouldn’t even need a public consultation then !

Ah but which public? Should we trust the public that say there's no Metro needed on the southside or should we trust the public who have to get up earlier and earlier in the morning in order to be able to board a glorified sardine can?

webwayz

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.

Again a metro station combined with maynooth line in drumcondra was a no brainer, it allows for people to change at drumcondra going to or coming from the airport, and with luggage, connecting with docklands/ifsc or connolly/grand canal dock and the maynooth/ sligo line, and even the south western suburban line via the phoenix park tunnel.

Now it seems to be stopping at whitworth road, this should be connected to the heavy railway lines, as a Phibsboro/Glasnevin station.

specialbyte

webwayz wrote: »

Again a metro station combined with maynooth line in drumcondra was a no brainer, it allows for people to change at drumcondra going to or coming from the airport, and with luggage, connecting with docklands/ifsc or connolly/grand canal dock and the maynooth/ sligo line, and even the south western suburban line via the phoenix park tunnel.

Now it seems to be stopping at whitworth road, this should be connected to the heavy railway lines, as a Phibsboro/Glasnevin station.

MetroLink is connecting with the two Irish Rail lines (Phoenix Park Tunnel and Maynooth lines) at Whitworth Road. There will be a combined interchange station at this location. More details here: https://www.dublinontrack.ie/news/metrolink-explainer-how-will-metrolink-connect-up-with-the-irish-rail-network

The reason MetroLink is different from MetroNorth and connects at Whitworth instead of Drumcondra is that they can get better and shorter interchanges between the two rail lines and MetroLink at Whitworth, where the two Irish Rail lines are literally side by side. This also will make it easy to do a change like Maynooth to Withworth and change to another Irish Rail train to Hazelhatch, something that would be much harder at Drumcondra where the Irish Rail lines are further apart.

CatInABox

It's a question asked and long been answered specialbyte, the question that webwayz quoted was asked back in april, at the start of this thread.

strassenwo!f

In that part of the city, broadly along the Royal Canal, the plan is to have two lines with DART/Arrow services and one metro line.

There will be people who wish to change between the two DART/Arrow lines, and there will be people who wish to change between the metro and one or other of the DART/Arrow lines.

The number of passengers who will wish to (or be able to) make both types of change on a single journey will be precisely zero (0), which begs the question why both types of change need to happen in the same place.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In that part of the city, broadly along the Royal Canal, the plan is to have two lines with DART/Arrow services and one metro line.

There will be people who wish to change between the two DART/Arrow lines, and there will be people who wish to change between the metro and one or other of the DART/Arrow lines.

The number of passengers who will wish to (or be able to) make both types of change on a single journey will be precisely zero (0), which begs the question why both types of change need to happen in the same place.

I do not understand your point.

Passengers will change from Dart/Commuter to Metrolink if they are going to the airport or SSG. They will change from Metrolink to Dart or Commuter if they are going Hazelhatch or Maynooth. Or they might change from Dart/Commuter to the other if their journey requires it.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to make two changes at the one station?

Last Stop

Why would you want to change from Dart to metro to Dart?

You’re suggesting that it would be somehow more efficient if the two DART lines interchanged at one station and metro and one DART line interchanged at a different station? Meaning that if you wanted to get from the one of the Dart lines to metro, you’d have to change at one station, take a different Dart for a short distance and then take metro.

What utter nonsense

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In that part of the city, broadly along the Royal Canal, the plan is to have two lines with DART/Arrow services and one metro line.

There will be people who wish to change between the two DART/Arrow lines, and there will be people who wish to change between the metro and one or other of the DART/Arrow lines.

The number of passengers who will wish to (or be able to) make both types of change on a single journey will be precisely zero (0), which begs the question why both types of change need to happen in the same place.

Are you just being a contrarian oul fella for the laugh now?

ncounties

I still think it is absolute lunacy that Metrolink isn't connecting with the Northern Line from the offset.