Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

antoinolachtnai · 09-11-2019 9:24am

Last Stop wrote: »

This would require the tracks in the tunnel to be stacked. This option was looked at as part of the tunnel configuration study for Metrolink and Dart underground but they chose single bore side by side for Metrolink so if you’re tying into that at Stephens Green you need the same tunnel configuration.

Not really. The tracks can twist between different configurations over the length of the single bore tunnel. Think of it like a length of 4” drainpipe with two lengths of flexible 2” water pipe inside. the water pipes can be side by side at one end and stacked at the other.

Last Stop · 09-11-2019 9:29am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Not really. The tracks can twist between different configurations over the length of the single bore tunnel. Think of it like a length of 4” drainpipe with two lengths of flexible 2” water pipe inside. the water pipes can be side by side at one end and stacked at the other.

To do that would require a single bore tunnel high enough to accommodate both tracks. Given that the plan was to upgrade the green line, it is assumed that Metrolink will have overhead cables rather than third rail meaning you’d need at least 5m head room for each track plus the depth of track meaning a tunnel diameter greater than the 10m roughly Metrolink is proposing.
It is possible in theory but not on this project.

salmocab · 09-11-2019 9:48am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Not really. The tracks can twist between different configurations over the length of the single bore tunnel. Think of it like a length of 4” drainpipe with two lengths of flexible 2” water pipe inside. the water pipes can be side by side at one end and stacked at the other.

That would require the height and widths allowed per tram to be the same. You’ve over simplified it.

reg114 · 09-11-2019 9:55am

Dublin was recently added to the list of capitals that will suffer from flooding on a regular basis due to rising sea levels. To even contemplate building a subterranean transport network given that threat would be foolish in the extreme. I stand by what I said before, Dublin will not get a metro system.

Last Stop · 09-11-2019 10:05am

reg114 wrote: »

Dublin was recently added to the list of capitals that will suffer from flooding on a regular basis due to rising sea levels. To even contemplate building a subterranean transport network given that threat would be foolish in the extreme. I stand by what I said before, Dublin will not get a metro system.

A full flood risk assessment will be completed as part of the planning application.
If Amsterdam can build a metro despite being below flood level, I think Dublin will be fine.

antoinolachtnai · 09-11-2019 10:37am

salmocab wrote: »

That would require the height and widths allowed per tram to be the same. You’ve over simplified it.

It’ll all fit in an 11.7m single bore tunnel easily enough.

GerardKeating · 09-11-2019 11:25am

reg114 wrote: »

Dublin was recently added to the list of capitals that will suffer from flooding on a regular basis due to rising sea levels. To even contemplate building a subterranean transport network given that threat would be foolish in the extreme. I stand by what I said before, Dublin will not get a metro system.

Metro does not have to be underground, could be elevated (like the DART loop line)

salmocab · 09-11-2019 11:33am

GerardKeating wrote: »

Metro does not have to be underground, could be elevated (like the DART loop line)

Apart from the unsightlness of that it makes turning in the city around street corners almost impossible it also increases the length of the thing, I would say it’s a complete non runner.

strassenwo!f · 09-11-2019 4:17pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You can make a metro station pretty much any width you want. Just stack the platforms. There is no law that says the tracks have to run side-by-side.

Indeed.

For example, much of the U4 in Frankfurt is like this. It was built under large stretches of the Berger Strasse, which is often about as wide as Liffey Street.

Last Stop · 11-11-2019 8:35am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It’ll all fit in an 11.7m single bore tunnel easily enough.

Which is still bigger than the proposed Metrlink tunnel

Bdjsjsjs · 11-11-2019 10:47am

reg114 wrote: »

Dublin was recently added to the list of capitals that will suffer from flooding on a regular basis due to rising sea levels. To even contemplate building a subterranean transport network given that threat would be foolish in the extreme. I stand by what I said before, Dublin will not get a metro system.

Sea level rises is panning out to be much less than expected. Just read any articles about it from 20 years ago. Current rises are not a major worry.

Sam Russell · 11-11-2019 1:16pm

Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

Sea level rises is panning out to be much less than expected. Just read any articles about it from 20 years ago. Current rises are not a major worry.

Unless you live in Dublin City or Cork City. Just 5 metres sees me, and much of Dublin City, under water.

I do not think that the Metrolink tunnel would be a particular problem as it will be designed properly to cope. The bigger problem is with water and wast ware infrastructure.

antoinolachtnai · 11-11-2019 2:01pm

Last Stop wrote: »

Which is still bigger than the proposed Metrlink tunnel

Have they stated what tunnel diameter it is intended to use?

It seems more likely that the promoters will increase the diameter or use twin-bore, than that they will build a station at Camden St.

(A stacked configuration at Dunville Avenue would seem like it would make it a lot easier to later link to the Luas line on the narrow site.)

11-11-2019 2:08pm

reg114 wrote: »

Dublin was recently added to the list of capitals that will suffer from flooding on a regular basis due to rising sea levels. To even contemplate building a subterranean transport network given that threat would be foolish in the extreme. I stand by what I said before, Dublin will not get a metro system.

The BART in San Francisco actually goes beneath the ocean in some places. The technology exists to prevent flooding.

Not building it would be even more foolish.

Bdjsjsjs · 11-11-2019 2:56pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unless you live in Dublin City or Cork City. Just 5 metres sees me, and much of Dublin City, under water.

I do not think that the Metrolink tunnel would be a particular problem as it will be designed properly to cope. The bigger problem is with water and wast ware infrastructure.

Models that predict 5 m sea level rise assume a vast increase in pace of rise. At the moment sea level rise is in the milimeters.

Last Stop · 11-11-2019 8:27pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Have they stated what tunnel diameter it is intended to use?

It seems more likely that the promoters will increase the diameter or use twin-bore, than that they will build a station at Camden St.

(A stacked configuration at Dunville Avenue would seem like it would make it a lot easier to later link to the Luas line on the narrow site.)

Looking like 9.2m external diameter. This report also explains why mono tube was ruled out (cost and waste)
Beechwood station (at Dunville Ave) was cut and cover from tunnel portal. To build a stacked station here would have added significantly to the cost and green line closure.

https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_PR_Design_Development.pdf#page32

antoinolachtnai · 11-11-2019 10:43pm

Last Stop wrote: »

Looking like 9.2m external diameter. This report also explains why mono tube was ruled out (cost and waste)
Beechwood station (at Dunville Ave) was cut and cover from tunnel portal. To build a stacked station here would have added significantly to the cost and green line closure.

https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_PR_Design_Development.pdf#page32

That cut and cover station might be built stacked though. I have not seen a plan for how they intend to eventually join these lines without requiring an extended disruption to the service. The stacked configuration whether in a TBM tunnel or in cut-and-cover facilitates a narrower footprint. It also allows use of sharper gradients at the portal which may result in a shorter footprint too

Last Stop · 12-11-2019 12:05am

How could you go from a single bore tunnel to a stacked station in a couple of hundred metres? The gradient on the upper level would be huge and then you’d still have issues with actually tying into the green line.
The issues would arguably be bigger as you’d go from tracks at the same level to tracks at different levels and then back to tracks at the same levels

The two biggest problems with the green line tie in are the tunnel portal and the station upgrade. A stacked station solves neither of these and arguably makes thinks worse.

antoinolachtnai · 12-11-2019 9:30am

Last Stop wrote: »

How could you go from a single bore tunnel to a stacked station in a couple of hundred metres? The gradient on the upper level would be huge and then you’d still have issues with actually tying into the green line.
The issues would arguably be bigger as you’d go from tracks at the same level to tracks at different levels and then back to tracks at the same levels

.

Put the tunnel-bound track on the lower level. The gradient downwards can be as sharp as you like as long as it is not unduly uncomfortable.

Last Stop · 14-11-2019 12:59am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Put the tunnel-bound track on the lower level. The gradient downwards can be as sharp as you like as long as it is not unduly uncomfortable.

Metros typically have a maximum gradient of 5%. Just because it’s downhill doesn’t mean that limit doesn’t apply. Anything over 5% and you’re into special requirements from rolling stock which drives up the cost.

antoinolachtnai · 14-11-2019 1:31am

Last Stop wrote: »

Metros typically have a maximum gradient of 5%. Just because it’s downhill doesn’t mean that limit doesn’t apply. Anything over 5% and you’re into special requirements from rolling stock which drives up the cost.

What extra costs are there for trains that can run down steep grades?

Last Stop · 14-11-2019 8:32am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What extra costs are there for trains that can run down steep grades?

The design to handle a >5% slope. The rolling stock specifications will be based on the steepest gradient

MrAbyss · 14-11-2019 8:06pm

Apology if this has been already mentioned here. Residents on the northside decided that Metrolink was going to start euthanasing the elderly while failing to count the blades of grass in a park.

It really is quiet staggering the extreme level of NIMBY lunatics that public transport projects unleash in this country.

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2019/11/13/some-residents-have-ideas-for-local-metrolink-station-they-just-wish-tii-would-listen

salmocab · 14-11-2019 8:12pm

MrAbyss wrote: »

Apology if this has been already mentioned here. Residents on the northside called the Garda after they decided that Metrolink was going to start euthanasing the elderly while failing to count the blades of grass in a park.

It really is quiet staggering the extreme level of NIMBY lunatics that public transport projects unleash in this country.

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2019/11/13/some-residents-have-ideas-for-local-metrolink-station-they-just-wish-tii-would-listen

Not sure you read that right, GADRA is an acronym

D.L.R. · 14-11-2019 8:20pm

Pity the church isn't being demolished. Horrendously ugly.

Nimbys aren't the problem, you get nimbys everywhere. The problem is the state folding like a cheap suit every time some minor nimby nonsense comes up. Now its god's grass verge. Laughable.

Ecuador just opened a metro folks. Ecuador.

ncounties · 14-11-2019 8:35pm

Some residents say they’re worried that the area around it wouldn’t be able to cope with traffic during the construction period.

The area wont be able to cope with the traffic it'll experience if they don't build it!

Kellyconor1982 · 02-12-2019 4:18pm

I really like the Luas.

However, unless it is small spurs off existing lines, I think we need to think more along the lines of a 20-40 year plan for multiple underground metro lines across the city, alongside the DU and the original Metro West orbital style piblic transport.

The Green line was (is?) a great piece of infrastructure, but only for a small number of people in Ranelagh, would be a fully fledged metro line within the next 7 or 8 years instead of remaining as is. Meanwhile, the Red Line is not a big enough piece of transport to serve the biggest suburb in the country, Tallaght, which is essentially a small city.

The last few pages have shown how low our expectations for positive transport changes are. We nearly settle for scraps rather than properly believing we can do better. Some are annoyed that the residents of the sw part of the city dare to expect more for their area in their calls for a metro. Parish pump comments from people who probably won't benefit from a metro line in that area but know the current plans benefit them.

I live on the northside but more power to the residents of the sw for puting pressure on their public reps to get a metro line out there.

At the very least ALL residents of the city deserve a proper 20-40 year plan of proposed transport investment for ALL of the city, that is backed by all political parties. Some areas like the SW clearly deserve to be next in line, but we should all have a timeframe across the board and know the plans for our areas.

Anyhow, I believe the Metrolink will be built and will be a great success and the above will end up happening, though I don't expect it to happen in my working lifetime.

donvito99 · 02-12-2019 6:01pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Some are annoyed that the residents of the sw part of the city dare to expect more for their area in their calls for a metro.

The reason I among others are annoyed is because the purpose of pushing for a Metro now is a means of stopping Bus Connects in that part of the City.

Kellyconor1982 · 02-12-2019 6:51pm

donvito99 wrote: »

The reason I among others are annoyed is because the purpose of pushing for a Metro now is a means of stopping Bus Connects in that part of the City.

Why not aim for something potentially better than Bus Connects?

Idbatterim · 02-12-2019 6:54pm

is the amount of traffic conflicts not the bigger issue for luas, rather than the length of the lines?

MJohnston · 02-12-2019 6:57pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Why not aim for something potentially better than Bus Connects?

a) Because any new Metro line plan started from now will not open for at least 10 years.

b) Because BusConnects can work to help the area with transport within 2 years.

Kellyconor1982 · 02-12-2019 7:04pm

MJohnston wrote: »

a) Because any new Metro line plan started from now will not open for at least 10 years.

b) Because BusConnects can work to help the area with transport within 2 years.

Fair enough, but as i said in my earlier post, it is important that pressure is put on political parties not to think that the current metrolink line, bus connects and a few spurs off the luas lines will solve the problems of the city. The problems could be 50% worse in 20 or 30 years. Let's plan for that over the next 20-40 years with proper plans backed by all political parties.

I travel a lot around the city and the sw corridor is disgracefully serviced transport wise.

For what it's worth, I think Dublin Bus delivers a good quality service, but it ain't enough.

marno21 · 02-12-2019 7:27pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

I really like the Luas.

However, unless it is small spurs off existing lines, I think we need to think more along the lines of a 20-40 year plan for multiple underground metro lines across the city, alongside the DU and the original Metro West orbital style piblic transport.

The Green line was (is?) a great piece of infrastructure, but only for a small number of people in Ranelagh, would be a fully fledged metro line within the next 7 or 8 years instead of remaining as is. Meanwhile, the Red Line is not a big enough piece of transport to serve the biggest suburb in the country, Tallaght, which is essentially a small city.

The last few pages have shown how low our expectations for positive transport changes are. We nearly settle for scraps rather than properly believing we can do better. Some are annoyed that the residents of the sw part of the city dare to expect more for their area in their calls for a metro. Parish pump comments from people who probably won't benefit from a metro line in that area but know the current plans benefit them.

I live on the northside but more power to the residents of the sw for puting pressure on their public reps to get a metro line out there.

At the very least ALL residents of the city deserve a proper 20-40 year plan of proposed transport investment for ALL of the city, that is backed by all political parties. Some areas like the SW clearly deserve to be next in line, but we should all have a timeframe across the board and know the plans for our areas.

Anyhow, I believe the Metrolink will be built and will be a great success and the above will end up happening, though I don't expect it to happen in my working lifetime.

There's a 20 year plan in place, the 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy, which is both ambitious but realistic. It was put to full public consultation and was originally published in draft form, yet the people who are crowing that it doesn't include their pet project clearly weren't listening at the time.

Between 2016 and 2035 it envisages

* Metro North + South (Swords to Sandyford)
* DART Expansion
* DART Interconnector tunnel
* BusConnects (previously Bus Rapid Transit also)
* Luas BXD, Bray, Finglas, Poolbeg and Lucan
* PPT/New Train Control Centre

Over a 20 year period, considering where we were coming from AND that the strategy was devised in 2015, it's not a bad plan. It currently looks like the above will be difficult to deliver, both for financial and political reasons, given the amount of objections, the general lack of will to build this stuff and the Government intent on making a haims of macroeconomic policy and two massive runaway projects

The GDA Transport Strategy will shortly be up for review so more may be included. But if the above can't get delivered, the absolute necessities, then there's little hope for SW Metros etc.

donvito99 · 02-12-2019 7:28pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

Fair enough, but as i said in my earlier post, it is important that pressure is put on political parties not to think that the current metrolink line, bus connects and a few spurs off the luas lines will solve the problems of the city. The problems could be 50% worse in 20 or 30 years. Let's plan for that over the next 20-40 years with proper plans backed by all political parties.

I travel a lot around the city and the sw corridor is disgracefully serviced transport wise.

For what it's worth, I think Dublin Bus delivers a good quality service, but it ain't enough.

It also needs to be said that a great deal of the Cllrs and residents associations (Cllr Conroy, Rathgar Residents Association etc) have accommodated the Re Think MetroLink group which was formed to prevent the Luas Green Line upgrade.

So whilst I agree that people should put pressure on Government to invest in high quality public transport, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking these people care about anything other than the status quo.

Last Stop · 02-12-2019 10:07pm

MJohnston wrote: »

a) Because any new Metro line plan started from now will not open for at least 10 years.

b) Because BusConnects can work to help the area with transport within 2 years.

Neither of these statements are true

gjim · 02-12-2019 10:28pm

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

At the very least ALL residents of the city deserve a proper 20-40 year plan of proposed transport investment for ALL of the city, that is backed by all political parties. Some areas like the SW clearly deserve to be next in line, but we should all have a timeframe across the board and know the plans for our areas.

Sorry but this is all very naive. And I'm not a cynic by nature and dislike general cynicism but I've been following PT developments in Dublin for decades at this stage.

There is absolutely no lack of "proper 20-40 year plans" for Dublin public transport. Since the DTS in the 1970s, we get a new big strategic decades-long ambitious plan every 5 or 10 years. I'd say the last thing we need are any more grand plans. Enough already - just build what's left of metrolink and hope for the best after that.

Backing by political parties isn't worth a fiddler's. Politicians will back anything hypothetical but the minute a potential voter starts complaining about the slightest inconvenience, they'll all scramble all over each other to out-NIMBY each other. Political parties generally cannot even keep their promises over the election cycle - what would make you think that a politician would feel bound to promises made by predecessors 10 or 20 years ago?

And why should a metro to Terenure should be next in line? I mean maybe it should be, I dunno, but what makes you so sure of this? Shouldn't a decision like this be decided by transport engineers on the basis of demand/demographics, cost, disruption, development facilitation, capacity, speed, integration, feasibility, etc.?

These factors that suggest that DU and metrolink should be the highest priority projects and I'm quite skeptical that the shower of NIMBYs and opportunistic politicians that scuppered nearly half of metrolink analyzed the PT needs of Dublin on any sort of basis. The NIMBYs suggesting the Terenure metro weren't people driven by concerns for Dublin to get the best public transport possible but instead were largely residents of Dunville Avenue outraged at the idea that they might have to walk for a few minutes to get to Morton's to pick up some porcini instead of being able to drive there in their SUVs.

Last Stop · 02-12-2019 10:42pm

The amount of bull**** about the SW needing a metro is ridiculous at this stage. The area has a low population density, limited space for growth and lacks a clear routing.
Just because they didn’t plan for a transport corridor does not justify a metro.

The option of an on street Luas has to be looked at for the SW.

The only credible route for a metro in south Dublin is to upgrade the green line.

CatInABox · 02-12-2019 11:08pm

Last Stop wrote: »

Neither of these statements are true

Seeing as Metrolink, something that's already got an almost complete plan, won't open until 2027, are you really sure that we could design an entirely new metro route, run multiple public consultations on it, finalise the design, get it through ABP, construct and then commission it before 2029/2030?

I'd find that extremely hard to believe myself.

MJohnston · 02-12-2019 11:18pm

Last Stop wrote: »

Neither of these statements are true

You're wrong/trolling/lying.

Last Stop · 02-12-2019 11:19pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Seeing as Metrolink, something that's already got an almost complete plan, won't open until 2027, are you really sure that we could design an entirely new metro route, run multiple public consultations on it, finalise the design, get it through ABP, construct and then commission it before 2029/2030?

I'd find that extremely hard to believe myself.

Seeing as Metrolink only started actual design last year and has designed an entirely new design (multiple station changes + a new strategy in Swords), ran multiple public consultations on it, is finalising the design, going to ABP next year and due for completion in 2027 (less than 9 years from start)... yes

MJohnston · 02-12-2019 11:20pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Seeing as Metrolink, something that's already got an almost complete plan, won't open until 2027, are you really sure that we could design an entirely new metro route, run multiple public consultations on it, finalise the design, get it through ABP, construct and then commission it before 2029/2030?

I'd find that extremely hard to believe myself.

There's not an ounce of a chance. Metro North and New Metro had heavily examined most of the Metrolink route over the last 20 odd years.

A Metro route to the South West has never been examined at all

Last Stop · 02-12-2019 11:22pm

MJohnston wrote: »

You're wrong/trolling/lying.

Nope/nope/nope.

Metrolink will be open less than 9 years after design started (not the at least 10 you suggested)

Busconnects is a year away from ABP submission, it’ll take a year with ABP and 2 years on each route meaning the earliest any corridor can open is 2023 (not the within 2 years you suggested).

Last Stop · 02-12-2019 11:32pm

MJohnston wrote: »

There's not an ounce of a chance. Metro North and New Metro had heavily examined most of the Metrolink route over the last 20 odd years.

A Metro route to the South West has never been examined at all

Again not true! While I complete disagree with the proposal, a metro to the SW was proposed under a platform for change in 2001. The very same document is the backbone of the majority of proposed transport projects in the GDA since.

So clearly a metro has been examined to some degree.

Last Stop · 02-12-2019 11:42pm

marno21 wrote: »

There's a 20 year plan in place, the 2016-2035 GDA Transport Strategy, which is both ambitious but realistic. It was put to full public consultation and was originally published in draft form, yet the people who are crowing that it doesn't include their pet project clearly weren't listening at the time.

Between 2016 and 2035 it envisages

* Metro North + South (Swords to Sandyford)
* DART Expansion
* DART Interconnector tunnel
* BusConnects (previously Bus Rapid Transit also)
* Luas BXD, Bray, Finglas, Poolbeg and Lucan
* PPT/New Train Control Centre

The GDA Transport Strategy will shortly be up for review so more may be included. But if the above can't get delivered, the absolute necessities, then there's little hope for SW Metros etc.

Without wanting to be pedantic Busconnects is not part of the GDA strategy. The GDA strategy envisioned a network of BRT lines
Swords to City Centre
Clongriffin to Tallaght
Blanchardstown to UCD
Complemented by improvements to pinch points on the bus network. Busconnects is more extreme than this along certain corridors and offers poorer results vs BRT.

In relation to your last point and the suggestion that “if the above can’t get dleivered” there is no if about it.

Metro South won’t be delivered before 2035
Dart Interconnector won’t either (although this wasn’t specifically proposed by 2035)
BRT has been scrapped
Bray Luas can’t happen until metro south
Lucan Luas has been pushed back by Busconnects proposals

I have to disagree with you when you say this plan was ambitious but realistic. This plan was far from ambitious; no Navan rail line for example, the removal of projects such as metro west and the downgrade of proposed Luas lines such as rathfarnham to BRT show a lack of ambition and even still half of the projects won’t be delivered.

MJohnston · 02-12-2019 11:43pm

Last Stop wrote: »

Metrolink will be open less than 9 years after design started (not the at least 10 you suggested)

As mentioned, Metrolink (which began design and planning in September 2015) had the benefit of working on the back of a huge amount of ground investigation and route design and planning from the previous Metro North (started in 2005, even got as far as a Railway Order and ABP planning permission), and New Metro North projects.

You can dismiss those all you want, but nobody else is objectively going to argue that those previous projects didn't give Metrolink a significant time-saving, especially in terms of route option design (the very fact that Metro North had already been through the process of presenting 3 separate route options meant Metrolink didn't have to).

Busconnects is a year away from ABP submission, it’ll take a year with ABP and 2 years on each route meaning the earliest any corridor can open is 2023 (not the within 2 years you suggested).

Except it's going to start rolling out in a phased basis from 2021. I mean, you can find dozens of articles mentioning this, so I'm a bit puzzled why you're claiming otherwise

By the way, even the worst case scenario for BusConnects (3 years delivery) is still much better than the dreamland scenario for Metrolink "South West" (9 years delivery).

MJohnston · 02-12-2019 11:47pm

Last Stop wrote: »

Again not true! While I complete disagree with the proposal, a metro to the SW was proposed under a platform for change in 2001. The very same document is the backbone of the majority of proposed transport projects in the GDA since.

So clearly a metro has been examined to some degree.

No, a hypothetical route was named in a vision strategy document. That is incredibly different from Metro North getting a railway order and planning permission. Metro North was 100% shovel-ready.

Last Stop · 03-12-2019 12:00am

MJohnston wrote: »

As mentioned, Metrolink (which began design and planning in September 2015) had the benefit of working on the back of a huge amount of ground investigation and route design and planning from the previous Metro North (started in 2005, even got as far as a Railway Order and ABP planning permission), and New Metro North projects.

You can dismiss those all you want, but nobody else is objectively going to argue that those previous projects didn't give Metrolink a significant time-saving, especially in terms of route option design (the very fact that Metro North had already been through the process of presenting 3 separate route options meant Metrolink didn't have to).

Where are you getting 2015 from?
If you look at all the design reports completed for Metrolink, none of them mention Old Metro North. While it may have a similar alignment it’s a completely different project. Do you really think that 2 years to develop preliminary design has accrued any time saving when you compare it to the time taken to develop Luas or motorway design?

Except it's going to start rolling out in a phased basis from 2021. I mean, you can find dozens of articles mentioning this, so I'm a bit puzzled why you're claiming otherwise

And starting on a phased basis in 2021, each corridor is going to take 2 years to construct meaning the earliest a corridor can open is 2023... as I said.

By the way, even the worst case scenario for BusConnects (3 years delivery) is still much better than the dreamland scenario for Metrolink "South West" (9 years delivery).

A 2023 opening is 4 years away. That is the best case scenario for Busconnects assuming no judicial reviews of ABP granting permission (not guaranteed in its own right) and SW corridor being done first.

While 5 years may seem like a long time, when you’ve been waiting for reliable public transport for 20 years, 5 years doesn’t seem so bad, especially when you are getting a far better system (overkill IMHO) for that wait.

Last Stop · 03-12-2019 12:03am

MJohnston wrote: »

No, a hypothetical route was named in a vision strategy document. That is incredibly different from Metro North getting a railway order and planning permission. Metro North was 100% shovel-ready.

Which meant a route has been examined to some degree.

Metrolink and Metro North are 2 completely different projects. By the way Metro North was not shovel ready. It was a design + build contract so it would have taken another year to get it to construction stage (enabling works would have a potentially started although unlikely)

MJohnston · 03-12-2019 12:12am

I'm done talking to this poster as I don't believe they're posting in good faith.

I'll leave it at what I've said, as I believe anyone with a bit of sense can see who is being truthful here.

MJohnston · 15-01-2020 12:39pm

Can't remember if I've posted this before but:

Would it be viable or not to upgrade the Green Line to Metro between Charlemont and Sandyford without a tie-in with the Swords to Charlemont Metrolink?

In other words, the Metrolink line would be built as currently proposed, then there would be a separate line running along the existing Green Line from Charlemont to Sandyford (and potentially beyond). This would negate the need for any long closures of the Green Line to facilitate tie-ins, but would provide the capacity that is desperately needed on this section. And, in the future, if it becomes possible to build the tie-in with a much shorter closure duration, then it's still doable.

My assumption is that this is viable but costly, but am I wrong? Beyond the cost of additional trains to run on this isolated section, and the need for turnback facilities at the northern end of the line, what is hindering this kind of plan?

Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Comments