Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Options
1444547495057

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Thought so, but yeah you're right. Clongriffen spur whether to airport or further west is pointless without quad tracking and increased capacity on Northern line.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,192 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Folks I’m seeing reports of 4 years of a closure before the metrolink trams can use the existing GL south of Charlemont.

    How so?

    I thought the GL was built to metro standard to allow for this eventuality- I know metro trams will be driverless and hence need full segregation from other traffic, but where are the crossings that will take four years to grade separate on this line?

    What are the choke points here?



  • Registered Users Posts: 493 ✭✭loco_scolo


    I think it's the connection from Metrolink tunnel up to Luas surface level. The Luas line itself is elevated until after Ranelagh so you'd need to dig up a significant chunk of Luas Line to allow the tunnel emerge without a steep gradient.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Metrolink will use high floor Metro vehicles, which will also be wider. Luas uses low floor vehicles and will be narrower. While the line might have the width between tracks to support Metrolink, the platforms would need to be rebuilt and heightened.

    Though as was pointed out in the other thread, a parallel Green line could be built, so it wouldn't need to close at all, just a slightly different route.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The idea that a four year closure of the GL and the cost of the ML would exceed €23 billion, and require the closing of Mertons was a fog of misinformation orchestrated by a few elderly mouthpieces who rallied against ML for their own interests.

    There are two problems that require sorting. St Raephaela's Road needs a bridge for the Luas/ML with a station on it as there is at Charlemont. The second one is at Dunville Ave which needs closing. Both could be solved without much difficulty. The bridge could be built as a standalone project as there is significant traffic problems due the the multiple traffic lights. Dunville Ave needs pedestrian/cycle crossing with a bridge. Car access would end.

    So, why a 4 year delay? Well, what voltage will the ML use? Can the platforms be modified quickly? (They need to be raised and moved back.) Can the St Raephaela's bridge be built quickly? Well, ask an objector or a project designer - depending if you want a correct answer or just spin..



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭prunudo


    There was talk of those upgrades being undertaken as stand alone projects. Did it ever progress to design stage or further? Or was it just guess work by posters?



  • Registered Users Posts: 493 ✭✭loco_scolo


    Does Dunville Avenue really need to be closed to traffic and pedestrians, with a pedestrian overpass? Since Beechwood stop is right at the junction, trams will be crawling through the junction very slowly. As such, full segregation is less of an issue from a safety point of view. If traffic was reduced to one way only, that removes one of the conflicts.

    Not ideal obviously, but is there a middle ground there that keeps residents happy and gets the damn thing built?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    The four year disruption to Green Line was real, and legitimate, and there was no way to avoid it due to the need to reconstruct part of Green line itsrlf. It was not a smokescreen. I posted a link to the relevant engineering report on the Metrolink thread.

    This loss of through service for years is why an extension south of Charlemont was dumped out of the current Metrolink proposal.

    However, between now and when an upgrade is needed, it would be possible to create a second Green branch south of Charlemont that would eventually become its future alignment. That would allow the current alignment to be closed to facilitate its upgrade to Metro without making the Green line useless for years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭Grassy Knoll


    Thanks, so I understand it what route/ alignment would the GL branch south of Charlemont take? How would that work logistically? Genuine question



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭gjim



    I really don't fancy the idea of Dublin attempting the novelty of allowing cars, pedestrians and cyclists onto tracks carrying driverless trains. Use some self-driving-car tech to detect if a kid has fallen between the level crossing barriers? No thanks.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Is there any publication from the ML project of a four year closure? I have a copy of the Preferred Route dated March 2019, which id 5 years ago.

    The report does not go further than Charlemont.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I posted the report in the Metrolink thread, but here it is again: https://web.archive.org/web/20210824030640/https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/ConstructabilityReportGreenLineClosure.pdf

    It was a four year disconnection of the northern and southern sides of Green Line, rather than a complete closure, but it was disruption for four years, and it would have also permanently removed Ranelagh station.



  • Registered Users Posts: 493 ✭✭loco_scolo


    Ah, gotcha. I forget it's driverless. Makes sense and agree!



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,310 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    A new rapid build high quality bus corridor with a mix of bus gates and bus lane, enforced by camera through Ranelagh, Miltown Road, Dundrum Road could be built with a new radial bus spine operating every 3 minutes could be implemented with little fanfare, close the luas for 4 years between sandyford and Charlemont and upgrade it to metrolink, job done in 4 years, keep the bus lane after

    Post edited by cgcsb on


  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭Windowsnut


    Why doesn’t it just connect from the airport around by the old airport road along the northern side of the M50, down alongside the N2 and then along tolka valley to connect to Broombridge Luas and western rail corridor?

    your then on mostly public land, can go overground for the most part and connected to greenline, rail and bus routes reducing cost, efficiency and increasing speed of delivery?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    That route would serve a much lower population.

    Metrolink is not Airportlink. It is primarily a mass transportation system for Dublin City, but the line happens to also serve Dublin Airport.. on its way to connecting Swords with the city centre.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    How long does it take a passenger to get from Swords to the Airport, and for a passenger to get from the Airport to the city centre?

    How does that compare with ML? Also, how does the frequency and capacity compare?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Thank you for posting that report. It is six years old and details the range of closures required. The four years time scale is for the overall project, with 9 months being required for complete closure of the Sandyford to Charlemont.

    Much of the closure time relates to the portal work which is made more difficult by the Metro alignment being beneath the Luas line. Moving the Metro alignment away from the Luas would make a huge difference.

    Once a tbm is in the ground, they might relook at the extension to Sandyford.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Can anyone remember how they dealt with the extending the platforms on the dartline. I don't recall them closing the line for months on end.

    There are engineering solutions to all problems, obviously more expensive solutions mean less inconvenience and visa versa, but the media will always go with most negative angle to sell paper or generate clicks.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,310 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    extending platforms at surface level stations is a completely different prospect though. The tie in would require bringing the metro up to luas level and joining the tracks within the route corridor, not as easy a task by half.

    Even still a new Sandyford bus corridor and a 9 month closure is fine, this is a normal level of disruption in most big cities in west europe where projects like this are common. People can adapt and the short term inconvenience is necessary for the long term benefit. If it were the north side this would be barely mentioned, people would just get on with it. How long did we have no red line luas in the city centre for the cross city line? It was months to my recolection, people just got on with it.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    They have to extend and raise the platforms, I assume it is the latter that causes the larger problem.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its easy, just not the impossibility that the media or some public figure make out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭gjim


    Won’t the upgrade also require the installation of platform screen doors? And presumably the fencing/security for the alignment will probably need work?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Yes but think of the frequency of service that these will provide.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭gjim


    Dont get me wrong - it will be fantastic if/when it gets done. To be honest, I’m of the unpopular opinion that the superiority of ML over MN justifies a ten year+ delay. Not that there was any way that MN could have proceeded given the financial crisis but every time I think of MN, I’m stuck by what a poor design it was.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,310 ✭✭✭cgcsb




  • Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭Grassy Knoll


    Thks, out of interest what are the major design improvements in ML v MN?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    ML is pretty much a downgrade on MN in every way. The two most notable design choices are that the Stephen's Green stop has been moved to the east side of the green which is further away from where people are going, while interconnectivity with Dart at Tara Street has come at the expense of a much more centrally located station under O'Connell Bridge. One improvement though is that ML will now connect with a new station at Glasnevin providing interchange with both lines along the canal where MN only connected with the line at Drumcondra station. And of course, MN already had planning permission so it would have been built by now.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,130 ✭✭✭gjim


    ML is driverless, platform screen doors, simpler shallower stations, over twice the capacity (20k v 9k per hour), full integration with heavy rail - Tara and particularly Glasnevin, higher frequency


    MN in retrospect feels like Luas tech run through expensive tunnels



Advertisement