Talk:MetroLink (Dublin)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

I forgot to mention that not all of the references in this article work properly. I don't know how to fix that, so if someone who does reads this note, please help. (Only footnotes 1-3 appear in the references section.) Bardavia (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix references as well as rewriting large parts of the article and updating information. Please let me know what you think. Alanmryan100 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit and Tone[edit]

I did some more cleanup of language, grammar, punctuation, etc., today. At what point can the copyedit flag be removed from the article? (I'm new at this and don't know how or by whom this is done.) My view is that the article need no longer be listed as in need of copyedit.

No hard and fast rules, but if improved considerably then you may remove copyedit flag. If someone thinks what you have done is improper they will likely raise their voice. See WP:CONSENSUS. Djegan (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Integration section of this article still has a partisan tone -- although not nearly so bad as the items described below that others have already removed. Again, because I'm new at this, I'm not sure how to get this section to the right level.

--Bardavia (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

If someone could get a map of the metro routes, that would improve the quality of the article. Jvlm.123 15:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say the same thing. -- Beland 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with giving maps is that the metro is proposed and not implemented. The danger with this article is that it could be premature, the Luas proposed and implemented had some differences. Djegan 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a map which I made myself, based on the ones on the RPA website. Has anyone got any comments/feedback before I look to make a similar one for Metro West? Much appreciated, thanks Alanmryan100 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Ministerial Vanity?: tagged as unreferenced[edit]

As easy as it is to make allegations such as these some reference should be supplied lest it fall fowl of Wikipedia is not original research and/or thus gain common currency. Djegan 15:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged: future product[edit]

I have tagged the article with the future product template as the project is still in early stages. The proposed Luas five years before implementation was distinctly different to the project that opened and it is only right that such articles be duly identified here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Djegan 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Ministerial Vanity[edit]

Having now added references , why is this being removed ?

  • Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper opinion page. I think the "Prime Ministerial Vanity" section is very biased and is only being added to satisfy your own need to take a cheap shot at the government. That's not what the article should be about. It's about the propsed metro system. Maybe you should add some more to the "Need for a Metro" section instead. (Also, just for the record, I never removed the "Prime Ministerial Vanity" section because I don't feel it's my position to do so - that would be for the moderators...)
This doesn't have anywhere near vaguely appropriate references - it's a thinly-veiled inappropriate partisan rant. It has a few pieces of supposed evidence for your case, but you've failed to supply any references to demonstrate that people other than you are making all those points. A news story covering this, or finding someone making all these points in the Official Report, would do, and even then it would limit us to making the points that they are doing. Morwen - Talk 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Develepment[edit]

In recent weeks there has been new news of a planed station for O'Connell Street being under O'Connell Bridge. This news coincided with further developments in the route planing, why has this news not been added to the page. 11th of September 2006 0307 am.

This station does now seem to be part of the plan. Given the unusual nature of such a station, perhaps it might be useful to add in links to pages relating to other sub-river metro stations, if such exist.

Precocious sentence re: DART in Drumcondra[edit]

I have just removed the following sentence: One source of current debate is the feasibility of providing an interchange station between the Metro and the DART where their respective lines cross in the vicinity of Glasnevin or Drumcondra.

The reason it is nonsense is that the DART does not go anywhere near either Glasnevin nor Drumcondra. So the metro cannot cross the dart in those areas. Frelke 06:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are extending the DART and having a new line, which will use the Interconnector.

The Dart "will" serve Drumcondra station with the use of the interconnector, the sentence you ommitted actual does make sense, as the dart will in the future be two interconnecting lines. Balbriggan to hazel hatch, Bray/greystones to Maynooth.

Maps in this entry[edit]

The maps provided don't seem to be very accurate. I suggest that anyone interested drawing up a new map should follow this link to the Railway Procurement Agency website for a more precise template:

http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/October%202006%20-%20Dublin%20Metro%20North.pdf

(above was written by someone else)

The map on the page has a typo -- "O'Connell St" for "O'Connell Bridge". Can the OP fix? Wwhyte 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal views presented as fact[edit]

I have deleted the following

‘despite the precedent for accommodating bicycles on public transportation across the rest of Europe.’

This is opinion and in any case there is no ‘precedent’ for carrying bicycles on public transport across the rest of Europe. Some urban railways such as the Barcelona tramway allow the transportation of bicycles but the vast majority do not.

It's not an opinion. There are several precedents around Europe for carrying bicycles on public transport. Although I did not write this original sentence, I think this should go back in.

I have also deleted

‘The distances between some of the city centre stations is also likely to become an issue. Inclusion of a station at Parnell Square would go some way to dealing with the problem of the long gap between the Mater station and O'Connell Bridge. However, the distance between O'Connell Bridge and St. Stephen's Green (around 800 metres) is considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros. It seems likely that the issue of station location will become a central one.’

The view that the distance between stations is likely to become an issue is just that a view. Again this is not a place for political opinions about what might happen. If it becomes a notable controversy by all means let's record it, but until then it has no place here. Also the statement that 800 mtrs ‘is considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros’ is entirely false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.109.27.38 (talk • contribs).

I agree with you that this is only a view, and I probably should have phrased this differently. However, to suggest that the statement about the interstation distances is "entirely false" is complete nonsense. I could give numerous examples of where this is the case - in fact it is probably considerably more difficult to give examples where this is not the case. Have a look, for example, at Paris. The average interstation distance for all the lines on the entire 16-line network (serving around 9.9 million people) is 564 metres. This includes all stations, not just the central ones. The comparison with Dublin (1.2 million people to be served by 2 metro lines) is, I think, a fair one. I shall rewrite the paragraph when I have time and re-insert it.


On the bicycle issue my problem is that the use of the definite article in the phrase ‘despite the precedent for accommodating bicycles on public transportation across the rest of Europe.’ Implies that bicycles are accepted on all or almost all public transport across Europe. This is of course untrue and is especially misleading when applied to underground metros where accommodation of bikes is the exception rather than the norm. For example no bicycle, except the folding ones, are allowed on the Paris Metro or indeed to the best of my knowledge on any French tramway or metro. This being France of course it does not mean you will never see one just that it is not allowed. Madrid allows Bikes on Weekends and national holidays but at no other times, Berlin U-Bahn allows bikes with the payment of a supplement and only on specially marked trains, Barcelona outside peak hours, Athens only on one of the lines and then outside peak and through rear doors of train, London not on the deep ‘tube’ lines and on the others only outside peak hours.

In short there is no single precedent as implied; also it is my understanding that it is far from settled that bikes will not be allowed on at all, it will be a matter for the operator, the RPA and the Railway Safety Commission to discuss at the appropriate time ie during the bids.

On the subject of the 800m gap between stations you site the example of Paris averaging 564 meters (the area covered by the metro is by the way nowhere near the 9.9 million people you claim as most of the greater Paris area is covered not by the metro but by the RER.) However Paris is odd, for one thing it is an unusually dense city compared to others and for another at the time the majority of Paris was built in the early years of the last century the designers unusually were happy to come down on the close stations side of the journey time number of stations trade off. Interestingly the latest line, line 14 boasts a much more usual average of, off the top of my head, approx 1,100m.

But I’m not here to give a lecture about the finer points of station location selection and patronage maximisation, just to observe that Paris is about the only system you can make this claim for. To give but a few examples, and I could go on and on and on, all figures are approx but close enough for our purposes, Tokyo 1,162m, Seoul 1,078m, Madrid 1,042m London 1,500m, Porto 895m, Lyons 1,153m, Moscow 1,742m, Mexico City 1,742m, Munich (U-Bahn) 1,400m, Singapore 1,709m, New York 2,389m, Berlin (U-Bahn) 912m.

Admittedly these are averages across a whole system and not restricted only to the city centre, but they are averages, there are many hundreds of station pairs on metros in city centres around the world that are 800m or longer just as there are many hundreds shorter, it’s just not unusual. Perhaps for a tramway it would be more so, but defiantly not for a metro. 82.152.221.248 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


May I suggest you go off and do your calculations again. You have clearly divided the number of kilometres of track on each of the above metro systems and divided this figure by the number of stations served. However, as many of the stations on the above systems are interchange stations, your method of calculation gives a seriously false figure for the average interstation distance. It would help if you could come up with the average interstation distance along the various lines in the above cities.

For example, you give a figure of 1,500 metres as the average interstation distance for London. However, the average interstation distance along each of the thirteen lines ranges from 0.833 kilometres along the circle line to 1.961 kilometres along the metropolitan line. Taken together, the average interstation distance along all the lines is 1.194 km, some 300 metres shorter than the figure you state.

As the figures which I have given for both Paris and London give an indication of how far a potential passenger is from accessing the network, such a discrepancy is simply not close enough for our purposes, as you suggest above. I would appreciate if you would edit the title of this section, and the preceding one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.192.131 (talk) 18:02, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


I’m afraid that it is your calculations that are wrong as I’ll explain in a bit, but first of all In what appears to me an increasingly desperate attempt to prove your point, you again quote selectively (as you did with the Paris example). The circle line you site is of course the line in London with the closest average distance between stations, with as you say an average separation of 0.83km. I will first observe that all these stations are in the city centre and their average separation is greater than the 800 meters that you described as ‘considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros’

Now to your calculations - I was at first a little puzzled by your comments. You are of course correct to imply that it would be foolish to try to calculate the average gap between stations by simply taking the total length of a network and dividing by the number of stations on that network, so indeed the estimate was based on a line by line approximation as you suggest. Further more as has already been observed above we have the same number for the circle line (did I mention that this was more than 800 meters?) but the other figure you state was for the Met line for which you claim the average gap between stations is 1.96 KM. But it’s not, it’s 2.02 (nor is it the longest btw as you also claim that’s the Waterloo and City at approx 2.5) so where was the discrepancy? Then it struck me I divided 66.7, the length of the Met line by 34, the number of stations and hey presto I to get 1.9617 or 1.961 as you put it. We agree! Just one problem, this calculation does not give the average distance between stops. If of course you have a line with no ends such as the circle then it works fine as the number of gaps between stations is the same as the number of stops, but for line with a station at each end (just a simple one with no branches for now, I’ll consider that in a moment) the number of gaps is given by number of stations – 1 and it is this number you need to divide into the track length as shown in the diagram below.

This works fine for most purposes and indeed is fine for showing that stations with gaps greater than 800m are not uncommon, which if you remember was the point at contention. But since you asked the question the full figures for the London network, line by line are as follows (counting the line by gaps between stations as the London network is complex and has loops and branches etc.)

Bakerloo 0.97, Central 1.51, Circle 0.83, District 1.08, East London 1.06, Ham & City 0.98, Jubilee 1.39, Met 2.02, Northern 1.16, Picc 1.37, Vic 1.4 Waterloo & City 2.5.

It would appear then that the average for the network would be the sum of these divided by the number of lines or 1.36 Km. (did i mention that was a lot longer than 800m) Unfortunately this again underestimates the distance between stations however.

Consider the situation below, of which there are a lot in London. The track length for such a section would be quoted at three but with only two ‘gaps’ giving an average gap of 1.5 yet it can clearly be seen that this is nonsense and the real gap between stations is 2. I do not propose to work out the precise distances this adds in London as I would need to look up the distance track diverges at each set of points to do so, but the average station gap across the system is roughly 1.5K give or take a bit.

But even ignoring all this and if your calculations were not fundamentally flawed, which they are, even by your numbers 800m is not ‘considerably longer than the norm for such central stations on other metros’ which was the point at contention.

I have no axe to grind as I have not been involved in the alignment selection in Dublin and I have no idea if the station locations are sensible or not. But I do think that your obvious hostility to the location of some of the stations has led you to make statements unsupported by the facts. (In any case the distance between stations on other systems is largely irrelevant when designing a system for a whole bunch of reasons I won’t go into here) So no I won’t change the title and although I won’t bother to change the new words you have inserted into the article as I suspect that you would only change them back I still think that they are seriously misleading. Perhaps you could reference the ‘concern’ over the station locations and bicycles so that we know it's not just you as I been unable to find any such concerns being expressed elsewhere.Rail101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rail101 (talk • contribs) 01:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

British plans for Dublin underground[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the British had plans to build one in the 1920s, and that Dublin would have one years ago if it wasn't for the fact that the country has been badly run ever since?!?! 157.190.228.18 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Instead of starving to death and emigrating under British rule we are amongst the best-off in the world and attracting mass immigration under bad Irish rule! Sarah777 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source the fact the british had plans, the rest is WP:POV Gnevin (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because never had mass emigration under Fianna Fáil.. or a population as low as 2.8 million! Plans for Metro North have been put on hold, maybe that should be included. Is míse --Play Brian Moore (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we screw up is hardly a reason to praise the genocidal colonial occupation, is it? We also increased from 2.8 to 4.5 in the past 35 years; under the occupation we went from 8.5 to 3. Difficult to see what your point is Mr Swine. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I'm not trying to claim the occupation was a good thing :) Far from it. Using your logic though, we could say we reached 8 (6 in the Republic?) million in population and then under (near) independence, we had only 2.8 million people living in the state. The point is, and this coming from a hardline Republican (just look at my name!), this stupid country cannot take care of themselves. 10 years of supernormal economic growth followed by the pull out of a few MNCs and the country goes to sh*t. 11% unemployment, for shame. Pity we gave away so much of our real independence to this new globalised world in which we live.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Population fell from 6+ million to 3.5 under the occupation. At independence we'd already lost nearly 3 million in the southern part alone. And the decline from 3.5 to 2.8 from 1922 to 1962 wasn't caused by genocide or mass starvation. In more modern times the country grew from 1987 to 2008, that's over twenty years by my count. In fact since the late 1950s until the past year the early to mid 1980s was the only sustained period of recession. The 20-year boom didn't happen in the entire West; but the bust did. As for "Real Independence" - like, for example, where? Name somewhere and let's chat about it. Compare and contrast etc. Sarah777 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the fact that the greatest (known) population this island ever achieved was under forign rule. CORRECT. Turning you're point around, economic collapse did not occur in the entire Western world, it did occur in Ireland. No matter what way you look at it, saying 11% unemplyment is acceptable is absolute rubbish. Growth should provide a quality of life for the future, namely adequate infrastructure. Ireland doesn't have these, bar a few roads to/from Dublin. "Real" independence; if world trade ceased tomorrow plenty of countries could survive. Ireland couldn't without a big fall in population and a complete collapse in living standards.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"economic collapse did not occur in the entire Western world" - INCORRECT. You appear to forget the Great Depression and World War II!
  • I didn't say 11% unemployment was "acceptable"; please don't invent straw men if you cannot deal with the points made.
  • Ireland's quality of Life is consistently near the highest in the world when comparisons are made.
  • Ireland's infrastructure is poor by West European standards; it is vastly better than what most of the world has to live with.
  • If world trade ceased the UK would starve; Ireland would not. FACT; we produce 5 times more food then we consume - they produce about a third of what they need. And everywhere would experience a complete collapse in living standards.
  • Oh, I'm still waiting for you to name the country with "Real Independence" - so we can deal with some actual comparative facts and figures, rather than trying to tackle your sweeping generalised emotive nonsense. Facts old chap. Facts. (And remember, I am not, and have not, claimed Ireland is a "paradise" or suchlike - to save you constructing the next straw man I feel you may conjour up). Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stay relevant please!? There was an economic depression in Britain in the 1870s. Should that be included in your list of totally irrelevant examples of recessions or depressions?
I never said that you had said it was acceptable. It was just a statement. Please don't invent straw men if you cannot deal with the points made!
It has been, yes. All we can do is wait for now. I'm not sure how many of those 'standards of living worldwide' surveys have been taken since last Summer.
We have better trains than Nigeria. Wow, I truly feel priveleged after 10 years of near "hyper" economic growth!
Not at all. The US provides enough food and energy to provide its population. Ireland does not. Straw men, sweeping statements, facts? etc...
A country that can take care of itself anyway but engages in trade in order to improve living standards. A country that does not fall over when its EU/US stabilisers are taken off.
I never could have forseen a subtle dig at Fianna Fáil turning into this! Maybe my original point about the shelving of metro plans could be included?

--Play Brian Moore (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you never said I said 11% unemployment was acceptable, did you not? "No matter what way you look at it, saying 11% unemplyment is acceptable is absolute rubbish." I care not a hoot for Fianna Fail, btw. I was just pointing out that you were talking 24 carat nonsense. Still waiting for that country with "Real Independence"; the USA most certainly does not produce enough energy "to provide for it's population"! Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still dont see where I've said that you said it was acceptable!? 2.8 popuation under independence, not "nonsense" as you claim but rather a factual statement. The US produces over 70% of its energy needs. If it wasn't producing snob goods for export I sincerely doubt it would need to use as much energy as does now. This discussion/debate/argument has become entirely irrelevant. I think I'll leave it here. Metro plans shelved!!!!--Play Brian Moore (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Interconnector[edit]

Perhaps we should have a section on how the DART Interconnector (ie. DART underground) will link with Metro North and West, as together all three will make up what we will come to call the "Dublin Metro" or "Dublin Underground" - perhaps a list/map of all the underground stations that will be available between the three of them would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.48.60 (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section on the interconnector, I have a map that consists of the metro west, north and dart underground lines and their route through the city centre, it is a modified version of this: http://transport21.ie/Maps/upload/Image/DrulinRailMapBG.jpg

I have uploaded it here: http://i31.tinypic.com/nmlzmg.gif

if someone could insert it into the article that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CiaranD88 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interconnector's a superfluous project. Use the Phoenix Park Tunnel for commuter trains before you start building tunnels everywhere under the city that only provide a duplicate connection between existing lines. After the spate of Iarnrod Eireann buying loads of DMUs, never mind decreasing the platform capacity at Connolly, blowing more money on EMUs and electrification will put the country deeper into debt for no reason, without adding service to new destinations; it's high time to modernise the signalling at Connolly and send Kildare trains there. And get rid of that infernal Luas plan for the Broadstone line, and open up Broadstone to commuter trains again—Broadstone's just as close to O'Connell Street as Connolly and it'd make for a far shorter ride into the city for Maynooth commuter trains instead of going way out of the way through Drumcondra. (And isn't it a pity that the Tullow Branch is gone? because I'd sure love to take a train directly to Naas instead of crawling down the N7/M7 in all sorts of traffic.)
71.181.211.88 (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wow! As someone who travels down the N/M7 several times a week (Red Cow-Newbridge 15 mins) I guess you must be walking? Or can't you find second gear:) Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow indeed. What time of day? You'd be lucky to find Newlands Cross moving at the times I've had to travel. Funny you don't mention anything east of Red Cow; bit of a tight squeeze trying to reach Davitt Road or Inchicore Village maybe, especially with the Luas tracks merging in? The Crumlin Road bottleneck is no fun either. Not that either the Metro or Interconnector will help in either case. You wouldn't want the direct railway line to Naas to come back at all?
71.181.211.88 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/dublin-metro/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dublin Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dublin Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dublin Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dublin Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dublin Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dublin Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly unfounded claim of 40km/h operating speed[edit]

It's claimed in the operations section that trains will operate at a commercial speed of 40km/h, however I haven't been able to find this in any of TII's own documents and it contradicts what they're saying about the entire 18.8km route taking 25 minutes to travel end to end (an average speed of about 45km/h) NoComment1 (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "unfounded", but that text is supported by this reference - an article by David Burroughs in the International Railway Journal dated to 11 May 2020. Which appears to be a relatively reliable source. And which reads "While the metro will be designed for 80km/h operation, the commercial operating speed is expected to be 40km/h". If you are aware of a contradictory source (that doesn't rely on OR or SYNTH), then please do add it. Guliolopez (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As reliable as the reference may be, this is mentioned nowhere in any official documents, even the operations overview in the planning report (page 15). It also wouldn't be physically possible for a commercial speed of 40km/h if the official end-to-end journey time is to be trusted, as I mentioned earlier. NoComment1 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be. But doing you/our own calculations is WP:OR. An editor's opinion or interpretation not actually stated in the source. If there is another source which speaks to operating speed (that doesn't require us or the reader to do their own maths), then please add it. Otherwise, while you haven't actually stated what change you propose to make, perhaps it may be suitable to simply add qualifier like "according to a 2020 article in the International Railway Journal ..." or "some sources state ..." or "reportedly ..." or "approximately ..." or similar. Otherwise, personally, the difference between 40kmph and 45kmph seems within a margin of approximation... Guliolopez (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best to remove it entirely and add some verifiable information about operating hours and journey times. NoComment1 (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolink is in planning[edit]

I've reverted some of the wording of Guliolopez's edit of the 6th Sept 2023 as the comment suggests as a motivation that that the provided details of metrolink are merely proposals and so should not be described using the word "plan" or "planned". In fact, the plan (including design, route, etc.) for Metrolink has been finalised and has been submitted as a railway order application so there is no speculation around any of these the details. I've added references (web link) to the formal railway order application and the associated documents. Similarly both DART+ west and south west are out of the planning phase and are awaiting the grant of a railway order. Jimg (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What is planned (or proposed or projected) to happen is not (definitively) what "will" happen. Plans change. Whether in consultation phase, design phase, implementation phase, or integration phase. It is also worth noting that the "motivation" for my changes are not based on semantics between a "proposal" and a "plan". Rather than what is "planned" and what actually happens are not always the same thing. Contributors to this project have previously confidently asserted in:
  • 2010 that "Dublin Metro will utilise St Stephen's Green [station] as the southern terminus of the planned Metro North line to Belinstown [..] will be a deep bore tunnel [..] and [will] open in 2013". Or
  • 2012 that "Christchurch railway station [..] will be one of five new underground facilities serving the reconfigured DART services [.and.] will be located next to Christ Church Cathedral near High Street"
  • 2009: that "Monard railway station [..] will be built at the existing Rathpeacon siding on the Dublin-Cork mainline [to serve a non-existent town]". Or
  • 2009: that "Kilbarry Station [..] will be in the northern suburbs of Cork City on the main Cork-Dublin line [..and..] open in 2010". Or
  • 2011: that "Carrigtwohill West railway station [..] will [future tense?] have a 90m platform and a carpark [..and..] be complete by Christmas/early 2010".
All of these confident and definitive assertions (about what "will" happen in the future based on a planning application - or even a planning approval) did not occur. By some margin. A planning application or approval is not a form of WP:CRYSTALBALL that overrides Wikipedia norms on describing future or planned events. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guliolopez. The issue for me, was the replacement of the word I had used - "planned" - with "proposed" - which I feel does not reflect the official status of the features of the system being described in the article. The preparation and submission of a railway order is a significant milestone and effectively fixes the features of the system so "planned" is a more precise description than "proposed".
So it's less about the use of the word "will" although I also think "will", if used in a context of something which has been described as a proposal/intention/whatever, is colloquially and generally understood not to be a definitive statement of future events but what's in the contents of the plan or proposal.
I also would like to bring up your changes to the section on the use of driverless trains and platform screen doors - for me, this breaks the causal relationship with what follows. Driverless+platform screen doors allow higher frequencies (which is why i added this sentence), therefore because of these higher frequencies, the system can use shorter trains and platforms while providing the same capacity. While now we have a statement about platform screen doors followed by a separate sentence with "is intended to operate at higher frequencies". I think it's important to communicate what went into the design decisions for metrolink and how the features relate to each other but if you're unhappy with the way it was originally expressed, I'd be happy to work on some other wording that makes this connection clear? Jimg (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your note. In terms of:
  • "[the problem being] the replacement of the word I had used - 'planned' - with 'proposed'". I have to admit to being slightly confused. In this edit, you changed multiple instances of "planned" to "proposed" yourself(?) Did you do this because the original "plan" was changed? And didn't occur as expected? If so, then why the presumption that current plans are any more concrete than previous plans? If it's because of the railway order, I would simply point out that a railway order was also issued for the DART Underground. In 2011 (by APB). And accepted in 2014 (by the High Court). But has since, as far as I'm aware, expired. While MetroLink isn't the DART Underground, a railway order doesn't necessarily make the MetroLink plans absolute, inevitable or definitive. (More likely? Maybe. 100% certain? Really!?)
  • "'will', if used in a context of something which has been described as a proposal/intention/whatever, is colloquially and generally understood not to be a definitive statement of future events but what's in the contents of the plan or proposal". I disagree. "Will", per the dictionary I have, is used to "express the future tense / express inevitable events". "Will" is not (without modality) in the conditional mood. Even if, laden with additional context or qualification, "will" could be read as "conditional" in some cases, I do not see why we'd use it. Not when other entirely reasonable and less potentially confusing words (that do not need reams of additional context) are available to us. Like "due to be". Or "planned to be". Or "expected". Or similar. The simple fact is that multiple articles on the project (including this one) have used the term "will" and "planned" (often without qualification or conditionality) and reality has proven different. I do not see why we would not learn from this (and the WP:CRYSTALBALL guidelines) and use less hubris-laden terms.
  • "Driverless+platform screen doors allow higher frequencies". If you have sources which express this expected benefit, specifically for MetroLink, then please provide them. The linked 2018 research paper discusses "platform screen doors" generally, and not their use for MetroLink. Almost akin to using a general paper on the benefits of airbags to describe a specific car (not covered in the paper) as inherently safe. IE: A form or WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.
Frankly (and you've probably already figured this out from the above) I'm fed-up with the parroting of property developer press releases, political party promises or planning/railway order reprints as if every proposed (or even planned) development is delivered exactly and entirely as speculated. (In such as way as to see, in several cases (such as the Inchicore station covered by the related railway order), an article being mirrored onto Wikipedia projects in other languages - describing such things as already/actually existing. When they don't. When clearer language is available to us, I don't see why we wouldn't use it. Even if only to reduce the risk of such text being misread/mistranslated...). Guliolopez (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand some of your frustration. I've been following Dublin public transport for ages since becoming a member of a rail advocacy group about 2 decades ago. However I don't think wikipedia is an appropriate place to vent or at least not in this manner.
If you believe that there is a significant chance that this project will not proceed, I'd suggest being explicit and direct by adding a section specifically on "reasons the project is unlikely to proceed". I would point out that most of the articles which seem to have annoyed you refer to plans just before the great financial crisis. This was an unprecedented event - the vast majority of plans which get granted a railway order are implemented.
Uncertainty about whether the project will actually be implemented or not is independent of the contents of the submitted railway order. The contents of the latter is not uncertain. The details I added are definitely in the railway order and reflect the design of metrolink. I can preface the section with "According to the submitted railway order" but I'd like the subsequent description of the technologies chosen to be clear and definite.
Regarding sources about PSD, driverless trains and operating frequencies, there was a clear logical sequence in my original submission:
- Metrolink will use driverless trains and platform screen doors. (reference provided)
- Platform screen doors and driverless trains facilitate higher frequencies. (reference provided but I can provide more - e.g. first google hit: https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/1725/platform-screen-doors/ - pretty much any article on the subject will mention this)
- Thus metrolink will support higher frequencies. This is simply a consequence of the above two facts.
But after your edit, this sequence is broken and now it reads as if metrolink's higher service frequencies is just an intension separate to the choice of these technologies. Which of course could be read as an unfounded claim.
By the way, the online Cambridge dictionary defines "will" as "used to talk about what is going to happen in the future, especially things that you are certain about or things that are planned". So in the context of much of the text of this article talking about plans and proposals, it's clear (at least to me) that the latter of the two senses of the word applies. I'm a fan of George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language", so prefer simpler direct language when possible. Jimg (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your preferred "simpler direct language":
  • "don't think wikipedia is an appropriate place to vent [about public transport projects]". Indeed. Please don't. (To confirm, I am not myself "venting" about unrealised public transport projects. I have given examples of how some Wikipedia editors have previously described proposed public transport projects. Such projects not (ultimately) being realised. Entirely or as planned. And "venting" that the lesson is ignored. In this case almost willfully.)
  • "you refer to plans just before the great financial crisis. This was an unprecedented event". You predicted the 2007 financial crisis did you? And COVID? And are aware that no such event will occur before 2035? Really?
  • "suggest being explicit and direct by adding a section specifically on 'reasons the project is unlikely to proceed'." No. Such a section could only contain speculative WP:OR. Which is exactly, per my note, what should be avoided.
  • "[how] Cambridge dictionary defines "will" [v Oxford definition]". As before, whether defined by "certainty" or "inevitability", I stand by my position that "due to be" or "planned to be" is preferable to "will be".
  • "metrolink will support higher frequencies. This is simply a consequence of [automatic doors and driverless trains]". As above, if you have source which expresses such an expectation (specifically for MetroLink) then please provide it and we can see how to include it. The webpage you mention makes no mention of Dublin or MetroLink. And cannot be used to support the text you propose. As WP:SYNTH.
Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too early to start creating articles for the planned stations?[edit]

The MetroLink is already planned and will hopefully be ready for construction to start in a few years. Currently the stations do not have articles, instead linking to the places that they serve, similar to the Luas stops before we added them to Wikipedia. Does anyone think it’s too early to start creating pages for these stations or are we okay to start? And when they are created, what will we call them? Most underground stations are either called tube or just station, though considering the Luas stops are labelled as Luas stop and not tram stop, could something similar apply to the MetroLink too? Ex, Swords Central MetroLink station. What does everyone think? JoshuaW56 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MetroLink_(Dublin)&oldid=1208476294"