Luas Cross City (Line BX/D) [now open]

LXFlyer

Dardania wrote: »

Fair point. But nevertheless, the throughput in the city centre area is no greater than it was before - will it increase when the full complement of trams are operational? Broombridge originating trams all turn at Sandyford right?

It’s doubtful that the peak frequency through the city centre will increase - at a tram every 3 minutes it’s already at the upper limit.

What will happen (hopefully) is that frequency from Brides Glen and Broombridge will increase again.

As for the service pattern - it’s somewhat disjointed, so not all trams from Broombridge terminate at Sandyford.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

It’s doubtful that the peak frequency through the city centre will increase - at a tram every 3 minutes it’s already at the upper limit.

What will happen (hopefully) is that frequency from Brides Glen and Broombridge will increase again.

As for the service pattern - it’s somewhat disjointed, so not all trams from Broombridge terminate at Sandyford.

Are you indicating that eventually some trams from Bride's Glen will turn around at SSG, once frequency can re-increase?

How can frequency from Broombridge increase without passing through the city centre?

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

Are you indicating that eventually some trams from Bride's Glen will turn around at SSG, once frequency can re-increase?

How can frequency from Broombridge increase without passing through the city centre?

That’s not what I’m indicating at all, although it would sort out the present issue.

More trams means that some of the trams that currently turn at Parnell can operate to Broombridge instead and there can be more departures from Brides Glen rather than starting at Sandyford, while maintaining the core frequency levels between Sandyford and the city.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

That’s not what I’m indicating at all, although it would sort out the present issue.

More trams means that some of the trams that currently turn at Parnell can operate to Broombridge instead and there can be more departures from Brides Glen rather than starting at Sandyford, while maintaining the core frequency levels between Sandyford and the city.

That makes sense

Nalz

LXFlyer wrote: »

No because the Maynooth Line trains already serve the city centre stations (Connolly, Tara St and Pearse).

Why can't they introduce zones for all transport? Oyster card sort of thing

MJohnston

Nalz wrote: »

Why can't they introduce zones for all transport? Oyster card sort of thing

The question is not 'why can't they?' but 'why won't they?'.

Nalz

MJohnston wrote: »

The question is not 'why can't they?' but 'why won't they?'.

True. I take it money is the biggest factor here? Would I be right? :pac:

MJohnston

I'm not sure tbh - I know that one of the biggest issues is simply CIE.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not sure tbh - I know that one of the biggest issues is simply CIE.

Not quite true. The issue is funding.

Time based ticketing would likely result in a significant drop in farebox revenue, which under the current funding model is the main source of funding for the three CIE Group companies.

To fix that will require a reasonably large increase in subsidy - that’s not something that the Dept of Finance has been too keen on.

The NTA is engaged in a slow simplification of the fare structures (to avoid shock changes for customers and the operating companies).

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

They have already admitted there is a shortage of trams in the Irish Times article that I linked to in post #4055 above.

The point I am making is that if the trams were moved (all of them) along the track averaging 20 km/hr then there would be a frequency of one every five minutes. The fact that they cannot suggests other problems than a shortage of trams. Adding a few extra trams (9 is it?) will not change anything much.

As an example, Ryanair try to turn around a B737 aircraft in 25 mins. Long haul aircraft take two hours or more to turn around, and then leave late. A tram should be able to turn around in two minutes, which it would if it were automated - now we are a long way from driverless trams, but even still.

All I am pointing out is there are sufficient trams if the 'other' problems were solved. A significant amount of the route is segregated allowing for higher speed running (up to 60 kph) which ups the average speed. So why are they so slow?

cgcsb

LXFlyer wrote: »

The NTA is engaged in a slow simplification of the fare structures (to avoid shock changes for customers and the operating companies).

We got leap cards 6 years ago and still NO SIGN of integrated ticketing on the horizon and progress towards it has been null for the past 2 years or so. That's not slow, that's stopped.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

We got leap cards 6 years ago and still NO SIGN of integrated ticketing on the horizon and progress towards it has been null for the past 2 years or so. That's not slow, that's stopped.

Where did you get this expectation that such a facility (a single journey multi-mode fare) would become available before now? I've only heard it in aspirational terms - as far as I'm aware the LEAP90 Discount was the extent that the NTA were prepared to go.

The problem might be that you listened to politicians discussing integrated ticketing. Never believe a politician! Incidentally, for any regular commuters the monthly and annual tickets have offered integrated ticketing for years - they would be the majority of multi-mode travellers.

Now the BusConnects project changes the situation regarding the single integrated ticket for each journey (if the project ever happens of course) as it is predicated on no penalty for having to change en route.

You do need to be realistic about this. Given the economic situation prevailing, for the last 7-8 years, which meant initially cuts in state funding and a very slow increase in recent years, and in particular the financial situation of the three CIE operating companies which has been precarious to say the least, there was never going to be any massive change. Passengers would not have worn fare increases, and the companies simply couldn't afford the drop in farebox revenue.

What has happened however is:

• In the case of Irish Rail, their suburban fares matrix has been overhauled to ensure that all fares reflect the actual distance travelled, and a large number of anomalies eliminated.
• The Dublin Bus fares are slowly converging on a two fare basis, probably concluding in the next couple of years.
• LUAS zonal fares have also been merged - we now have 4 sets of fares rather than 5. Some of the fare changes this year are bigger than others in preparation for a further consolidation of zonal fares and I'd expect them to be brought ultimately in line with Dublin Bus.

The latest fare determinations have committed to the continued simplification of the fare structures, but over a number of years, in such a way that will ultimately facilitate the implementation of the BusConnects plan (I remain to be convinced that the latter will happen as the consultants imagine, but that's another topic).

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point I am making is that if the trams were moved (all of them) along the track averaging 20 km/hr then there would be a frequency of one every five minutes. The fact that they cannot suggests other problems than a shortage of trams. Adding a few extra trams (9 is it?) will not change anything much.

As an example, Ryanair try to turn around a B737 aircraft in 25 mins. Long haul aircraft take two hours or more to turn around, and then leave late. A tram should be able to turn around in two minutes, which it would if it were automated - now we are a long way from driverless trams, but even still.

All I am pointing out is there are sufficient trams if the 'other' problems were solved. A significant amount of the route is segregated allowing for higher speed running (up to 60 kph) which ups the average speed. So why are they so slow?

Why are they so slow? Eh, have you watched the trams passing through the city centre at peak times? They have so many potential obstacles en route.

Sam, one basic rule in scheduling (airlines, bus companies, trains and trams etc.) is that you allow recovery time for unforeseen issues en route. A two minute turnaround on a line that is no longer pretty much fully segregated would not be realistic.

That's also why the running times through the city centre have been extended by 6 minutes in either direction from the original plan. I think that it is obvious that TII also got their original timing estimates way off, and perhaps expected 21 minutes as being sufficient from the word go as the norm - and realised quickly that it would need to be increased to 27 minutes.

This the extra time allowed to travel through the city (12 minutes on a round trip) as per the launch timetable would seriously impact on the number of departures that the trams could operate and that too has impacted on the ability to deliver the service along with the non-delivery of the additional trams.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point I am making is that if the trams were moved (all of them) along the track averaging 20 km/hr then there would be a frequency of one every five minutes. The fact that they cannot suggests other problems than a shortage of trams. Adding a few extra trams (9 is it?) will not change anything much.

As an example, Ryanair try to turn around a B737 aircraft in 25 mins. Long haul aircraft take two hours or more to turn around, and then leave late. A tram should be able to turn around in two minutes, which it would if it were automated - now we are a long way from driverless trams, but even still.

All I am pointing out is there are sufficient trams if the 'other' problems were solved. A significant amount of the route is segregated allowing for higher speed running (up to 60 kph) which ups the average speed. So why are they so slow?

Ryanair may claim a 25 minute turnaround but both the incoming and outgoing flight have significant padding to ensure that it's not a strict 25 minute turnaround

Flights from London to Kerry take about an hour but are scheduled for an hour an a half. Usually they arrive 10 minutes early and depart 5 minutes late. 40 minute turnaround but the return flight to London is on time because of the padding.

This also contributes to Ryanair's "always on time" claims.

Chivito550

Took a trip out from Dawson to Broombridge and back on my lunch break today.

Northbound: 18 mins 52 secs
Southbound: 22 mins 19 secs

Southbound is considerably slower.

MJohnston

Chivito550 wrote: »

Took a trip out from Dawson to Broombridge and back on my lunch break today.

Northbound: 18 mins 52 secs
Southbound: 22 mins 19 secs

Southbound is considerably slower.

Those are both excellent times though, maybe an extra 2 to SSG. I'm surprised southbound isn't faster though with Marlborough and Rosie Hackett being much quieter than the northbound route.

Chivito550

MJohnston wrote: »

Those are both excellent times though, maybe an extra 2 to SSG. I'm surprised southbound isn't faster though with Marlborough and Rosie Hackett being much quieter than the northbound route.

Dominick to Parnell is a bit slow and Marlborough to Trinity is very slow. Southbound also covers more metres of track than northbound. Accounting for maybe 3 mins to Stephens green (including stop) we are looking at 22 and 25 mins. The former is good, but the latter could be improved.

Jamie2k9

Took the service from SSG today:
10.5 minutes to GPO, overall around 26 minutes however around 4-5 minutes between O'Connell and Dominic Junctions. They need to address the timings here. Tram was on a continues move until Westmorland where traffic on O'Connell B caused it to stop in the middle of the junction but after 10 seconds a clear run up to GPO. With sum light adjustments overall no service should exceed 23 minutes.

1 - No new leap or TMV at extended SSG - when a platform is full you cannot purchase a ticket. second tram info displays would also be good.
2 - Out of Service tram from B Bridge heading southbound at 17.50 - I hope it wasn't a planed change.
3 - Turnarounds at B Bridge are taking 10-12 minute at peak times, completely un acceptable considering the tram shortage.
4 - When getting on at SSG circ 17.30, there was a 10 minute gaps on trams going southbound.

Overall good experience, around 50 exited at B Bridge. Most boarded the tram before it arrived at SSG, very little going through the city. I wonder will they allow a few parking spaces there once they move the last bit of construction material backing on Irish Rail platforms. I think a car park of some sorts would benefit numbers. I know its very central but considering the lack of housing around B Bridge a car park is needed.

BowSideChamp

MJohnston wrote: »

Those are both excellent times though, maybe an extra 2 to SSG. I'm surprised southbound isn't faster though with Marlborough and Rosie Hackett being much quieter than the northbound route.

More turns involved in the Southbound route.

Bray Head

I took it around lunchtime yesterday.

SSG to GPO was nine minutes and another 12 to Broombridge to make 21 in total. The main obstacles that I could see were private cars and taxis encroaching on the tracks. But I think this time is very competitive compared to all alternatives.

Southbound was much slower. I only went Broombridge to Marlborough but that took 17 minutes. I would guess 25 minutes to SSG in total.

Will remain to be seen whether these (good) northbound times will hold up as frequency increases.

There were a lot of passengers on the line given that it has only been in use for a few weeks. Once people adjust their working patterns it won't be long before it reaches the levels of patronage on the southside parts of the green line.

handlemaster

Whats the situation now with connections to blanchardstown shopping centre are there collecting buses with broombridge ?

mrsdewinter

handlemaster wrote: »

Whats the situation now with connections to blanchardstown shopping centre are there collecting buses with broombridge ?

There's none, really. There's a stop for the 120 bus about 50 yards away from Broombridge, but in order to get a bus transfer up to the Blanchardstown Centre, you'd have to go down to the Navan Road, crossing Cabra. I understand that one of the stops on the Maynooth train line is quite near the shopping centre at Blanch, but I don't know which one.

yabadabado

mrsdewinter wrote: »

There's none, really. There's a stop for the 120 bus about 50 yards away from Broombridge, but in order to get a bus transfer up to the Blanchardstown Centre, you'd have to go down to the Navan Road, crossing Cabra. I understand that one of the stops on the Maynooth train line is quite near the shopping centre at Blanch, but I don't know which one.

Coolmine probably the closest but would be 20 minute walk or similar.

Middle Man

Chivito550 wrote: »

Took a trip out from Dawson to Broombridge and back on my lunch break today.

Northbound: 18 mins 52 secs
Southbound: 22 mins 19 secs

Southbound is considerably slower.

I rode the LCC today and would come to the same conclusion - in fact, going around Trinity was not all that bad either direction. To me, the real slow part was Marlborough Street and why? It seems that the trams are not being prioritised along that stretch and with little road traffic there (at the time of my travel) to utilise such priority, that is disgraceful for what is an expensive high capacity transit link IMO. Traffic engineers need to maximise the number of people through the junctions, not the number of vehicles - since a tram can carry over 300 people, surely it should get first priority - can the traffic lights not be fitted with sensors to fast track the passage of trams?

Sam Russell

Middle Man wrote: »

I rode the LCC today and would come to the same conclusion - in fact, going around Trinity was not all that bad either direction. To me, the real slow part was Marlborough Street and why? It seems that the trams are not be prioritised along that stretch and with little road traffic there (at the time of my travel) to utilise such priority, that is disgraceful for what is an expensive high capacity transit link IMO. Traffic engineers need to maximise the number of people through the junctions, not the number of vehicles - since a tram can carry over 300 people, surely it should get first priority - can the traffic lights not be fitted with sensors to fast track the passage of trams?

That is not the only point.

The tram has to cross the junction and will take less time to cross if it does not stop - unlike other vehicles, only one tram at a time crosses the junction. With buses and cars, multiple vehicle can cross but with trams only one. If the tram could hit the junction at speed (safe) then it will cause minimum disruption and delay to other traffic. Normal traffic will have to get used to giving way to trams at short notice if they are to run at the advertised frequency.

Drivers accept the closing gates at a level crossing, and get out of the way of blue lights, so why not trams?

Also, if the long trams are introduced this is even more important.

Zebra3

yabadabado wrote: »

Coolmine probably the closest but would be 20 minute walk or similar.

Coolmine would be closest walk, 38(A) I think connects Castleknock station with Blanch centre.

JazzyJ

Went to take a tram yesterday afternoon from Glencairn with the buggy. A couple of trains were full to the brim by the time they got there so couldn't get on. Turned around and ended up driving where I needed to go.

Victor

Thought: while not ideal, would a shuttle bus service from Ballyogan to Sandyford help things in the morning?

another alternative would be short-running trams to either The Gallops or Carrickmines, but I'm not sure that would make a difference.

trellheim wrote: »

there's no shuttle platform like Heuston

The siding at St. Stephen's Green north can carry out a similar function.

cgcsb wrote: »

We got leap cards 6 years ago and still NO SIGN of integrated ticketing on the horizon and progress towards it has been null for the past 2 years or so. That's not slow, that's stopped.

Gradually, all fares in the city are moving towards a short fare / long fare model. Things like Transfer 90 and the changes in Luas fares are part of this.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I think a car park of some sorts would benefit numbers. I know its very central but considering the lack of housing around B Bridge a car park is needed.

Looks at this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.3714/-6.2987 all the grey area is housing.

handlemaster wrote: »

Whats the situation now with connections to blanchardstown shopping centre are there collecting buses with broombridge ?

Best to change in the city centre.

markpb

Victor wrote: »

Thought: while not ideal, would a shuttle bus service from Ballyogan to Sandyford help things in the morning?

The traffic into and out of Sandyford at peak hours would make that a slow and unpredictable journey. Probably not very attractive.

KD345

Victor wrote: »

Thought: while not ideal, would a shuttle bus service from Ballyogan to Sandyford help things in the morning?

another alternative would be short-running trams to either The Gallops or Carrickmines, but I'm not sure that would make a difference.The siding at St. Stephen's Green north can carry out a similar function.

This would be a backwards step, heavy traffic and limited capacity would make it unattractive.

You can be certain this stretch of line between Sandyford and Brides Glen will become the most difficult to manage. With at least 1,000 homes/apartments currently being built at Clay Farm, and Cherrywood adding a population of 30,000 people in the next decade, there will be heavy pressure on the Luas. In fact, almost all of the Cherrywood selling points seem to focus on Luas, with 1,300 apartments being built adjacent to the Luas platform itself.