Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

1585961636475

Comments



  • To be fair, he's right that there wasn't a public consultation done for the line as it now stands. (On the back of the last consultation, it was decided to substantially alter it to its current design.) But consultations exist to smooth over fine details, not to consider the public's suggestions of grand alternatives. And, anyway, as we all know, the NTA still expects to upgrade the Green Line south of Charlemont in a decade or two. Perhaps the NTA has brought this on itself by being so coy about its future intentions.

    But it is not proposing to terminate the line just north of Beechwood. It is proposing to stop the tunnel just north of Beechwood.

    This thread terminates at Charlemont, as do the current proposals.




  • To be fair, he's right that there wasn't a public consultation done for the line as it now stands. (On the back of the last consultation, it was decided to substantially alter it to its current design.) But consultations exist to smooth over fine details, not to consider the public's suggestions of grand alternatives. And, anyway, as we all know, the NTA still expects to upgrade the Green Line south of Charlemont in a decade or two. Perhaps the NTA has brought this on itself by being so coy about its future intentions.

    Just to be clear there were two consultations on the Metrolink route:

    The first was in March 2018 which was the on the Emerging Preferred Route of a line from Swords to Sandyford.

    The second was in March 2019 which was the Preferred Route which was for the proposal as now stands which is for Metrolink to run from Swords-Charlemont, but with the tunnel continuing further south to between Ranelagh and Beechwood.

    So the letter writer is wrong. The current proposal which is about to go to ABP was consulted on in March 2019.

    https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/Public_Consultation_Document_for_the_Preferred_Route_HR.pdf

    See page 30 of the above document for a map which is the consultation from March 2019.




  • To be fair, he's right that there wasn't a public consultation done for the line as it now stands.

    He's not right.

    (why the IT feels the need to publish badly informed letters is another question)




  • D.L.R. wrote: »

    (why the IT feels the need to publish badly informed letters is another question)

    I suspect there is a high incidence of trustees and columnists living in proximity to the Green Line in Ranelagh.

    And they must cycle into Tara St as if they planned on getting the Luas they'd have no hope getting on at Beechwood in the normal times.




  • it was decided to substantially alter it to its current design

    The only change in design between the first and second version of Metrolink is the location of the Tunnel Portal and Tie in Location with the Green Line.

    V2 is the line from Swords to Charlemont, with the tunnel continuing to north of Beechwood, which is the location of the future tie-in location.

    The line is being designed with the intention to link it to the Green Line at a later date.

    That's why journalists should be banned from using the word SHELVED or ABANDONED. Neither accurate reflects. The project was split into two phases.


  • Advertisement


  • donvito99 wrote: »
    And they must cycle into Tara St as if they planned on getting the Luas they'd have no hope getting on at Beechwood in the normal times.

    Newspaper working day starts and ends later than a normal working day.




  • Despite numerous candidates in Dublin Bay South saying some version of we should divert this and divert that.
    And groups like Rethink Metrolink and "Metro South West" calling for the project to be capped an begun again...

    The Minister for State for Transport, Hildegarde Naughton has confirmed that Metrolink will go to Charlemont.
    A feasibility study into possible options after that will be considered as part of the Transport Strategy next year, but the alignment will not be altered to make any of those options easier or harder.

    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1412367192054808580




  • Any update on when they are submitting the Railway Order, I know it was originally due at end Q2 (last week) but that was missed.

    Supposedly, when that is submitted we are 12-18 months from construction starting.




  • 1huge1 wrote: »
    Any update on when they are submitting the Railway Order, I know it was originally due at end Q2 (last week) but that was missed.

    Supposedly, when that is submitted we are 12-18 months from construction starting.

    The Project is with the Department of transport now, they're doing their final checks to make sure the project adheres to the public spending code, then it goes to ABP.

    They anticipate the end of this month.




  • Interesting watching this now. No one was anti-underground LUAS per-se, more a case of how it was to be constructed. Seems like cut and cover was the option - which let's face it would be nuts for Dublin city centre.

    The usual cultural aspect is funny too. The Irish thinking Public Transport is something to be wary of.

    https://www.rte.ie/archives/2021/0726/1237378-no-underground-for-dublin/



  • Advertisement


  • "The Minister for State for Transport, Hildegarde Naughton has confirmed that Metrolink will go to Charlemont.

    A feasibility study into possible options after that will be considered as part of the Transport Strategy next year, but the alignment will not be altered to make any of those options easier or harder."

    I hate the NIMBYs and "rethink metro" clowns as much as the next person but this seems daft to me. They should stop tunnelling at Stephen's Green to give themselves as much freedom as possible to complete the southern section link-up in the best/most economic way possible. If one of the options is going to cost 1Billion while another is going to cost 2Billion, then I'd damn well want the alignment to be altered to make the 1Billion option easier.





  • I think it's part of the plan. 2028 rolls around and we're boring at Charlemont. Luas Green Line is under severe pressure. Minister for Transport isn't a southsider with one eye on his seat.

    It is decided that we bite the bullet and immediately start work to tie the metro into the green line tracks.

    Either that, or it never gets done because people in Ranelagh are too important and the Luas Green Line is an Indian train in perpetuity.





  • I hope they would consider, at an early stage, why it might be overwhelmed.

    Dublin is either the only city, or one of very few, which runs 55m trams.

    It's the only city I can think of which is (or was) running 20 trams per hour in one direction along a single line (there are many others which run more in sections, but that's mostly where several lines share a central section).

    Why is this?

    I think it is because Dublin has failed to develop new corridors, which in essence compete with each other, and thus reduce catchment area and loading on any particular line. You can see this if you look at many other European cities, where it seems that the gap between suburb-city lines (metro, tram, heavy rail), even at a distance from the centre that, say, Dundrum is, is about 2-3 km.

    At Dundrum, that gap is currently about 7 (seven) in each direction. Around 7 to the DART, around 7-8 to the Red LUAS.

    This is the obvious explanation for the overcrowding that was seen on the LUAS Green line prior to the pandemic, because the corridor does not have a particularly high population or high population density, either in Dublin terms or in terms of comparably European cities.

    To my mind, any proposal to replace the Green Line needs to answer why it was having to run such a high throughput, and why it was having to run such long trams, on what is essentially a weakish corridor, population-wise.

    The solution to this is, I believe, development of other corridors between the DART, the Green Line and the Red Line, to reduce that gap and reduce the pressure on any individual line.

    Two things which are often lost in any discussion of unnecessary replacement of the Green LUAS south of the canal are: replacement by a metro won't result in any (noticeable) reduction in journey times between the city centre and southern suburbs of the Green Line, which is the key journey; and there should be considerable scope for small, relatively easy measures to take place within the city to facilitate a higher frequency on the line south of the canal without increasing the throughput on any one section of LUAS through the city. In this regard, I do like the overall plan to run up to 30 trams per hour per direction, if necessary, along the current southside Green Line in the years up to the mid-2040s.





  • Most cities don't use on street trams to serve distant suburbs and provide the heavy lifting capacity of the public transport network. In Dublin we have few rail assets and even fewer near centres of population and employment so those assets are sweated to ridiculous levels, 55m trams and very frequent running, without multiple lines converging.


    Other cities would have instead developed their heavy rail commuter train network and only used trams withing their ring road. Extending luas to the Dublin mountains was politics and poor planning at play.





  • What's worse is that of the four Luas lines in planning, 2 of them will go beyond the Ring Road/M50, and the third goes right upto it. Nothing learned whatsoever.





  • Why is the Luas Green Line overwhelmed? Because it's a tram line. Let me explain...

    Compared to heavy rail (this is a fair comparison imo as the Green Line literally was a heavy rail line before some genius decided to close it down), the Luas is low capacity.

    Trams are 50cm narrower than trains and 110m shorter. The low floor nature of the trams significantly reduces capacity. The capacity of a 55m tram is around 410 passengers. Crossrail trains are 205m long and can carry 1,500 passengers. Using these numbers, a Dart length train (165m) would have a capacity of 1200 passengers.

    So with a Dart every 6 minutes, you have the same capacity as the Luas @ 30 tph.

    Dart Underground will have ~20-24tph, thats a capacity of 24,000-28,800. The Luas Green Line at its absolute maximum capacity will barely get to 50% of that.

    I don't want to hate on the Luas, but building a low-floor, non-grade separated light rail line on a former heavy rail line was not the best idea imo.



  • Advertisement


  • You haven't addressed any of the issues in my post, and it is preposterous to reference its previous life, whatever many years ago, as a heavy rail line. In its former life it probably had, what?, max 8 trains per day?

    Please deal with the current issue.





  • Select the text you want bolded, then the formatting tools will pop up. Had to look it up myself.





  • If it had been kept as a heavy rail line, it would have much more capacity and there would be no capacity issues for decades to come. The PPT used to have zero trains per day, it will have over 100 with Dart+. How many trains per day it had 70 years ago is irrelevant. It's the potential capacity of the line that's important.

    You have been consistently opposed to the Green Line metro upgrade. It's a cheap upgrade which will double the capacity of corridor. The Line needs to be upgraded. Thousands of housing units/jobs have been added at Dundrum, Sandyford, Central Park, Cherrywood etc. More coming at the Central Mental Hospital and other places. Milltown golf club will probably eventually be sold off to Developers too. Those people need to get around. Green Line-Metro upgrade is by far the most cost effective way to do that.





  • Still no sign of the railway order application, God the TFI are so inefficient





  • a 100 trains per day for the phoenix park tunnel - I recall lobby groups in the past who wanted it reopened to passenger services laughed at by CIE and Irish Rail managers. There were even articles in the media saying it was too narrow for modern trains. Incredible to look back at this now. Explains so much as to why we never catch up with the imbeciles who called the shots over the years.





  • Irish Rail successfully convinced people it was unsuitable for trains, even when still running one or two services a week through it at the time.


    I had someone vociferously arguing with me that it had been singled to allow passenger trains through and that the Network Statement was wrong saying it was dual track; brainwashed by years of commentary that it couldn't take twin track passenger services!





  • Irish Rail didn’t want the PPT to open for passenger services.

    They did all they could to stop it happening. All this BS that it wasn’t suitable for passenger trains. They saw it as a threat to DU. In fairness, they weren’t far wrong as DU is not in the 2027 NDP. Looks like PPT services connecting with metro will have to do from 2028-2040.

    When they “upgraded” the PPT line to Glasnevin, they put/kept a 25mph permanent speed limit on a perfectly fine section of track. Glasnevin to GCD is 30mph but it doesn’t really matter because the stations are so close.

    When it opened to passenger services they didn’t run an advertising campaign to highlight it.

    There’s no weekend service.



  • Advertisement


  • The 2027 NDP is out of date now. There's a new one being published next month so DU may feature. The size of the NDP is up by 45bn to 136bn (removed investment by commercial semi states here). The big issue with the PT capital investment section here is how little of the 2018-2027 funding allocations have been drawn down, mainly as money spent on MetroLink/DART+/BusConnects has been on ink, filing cabinets and consultancy invoices.



Advertisement