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

trellheim

Are we not switching LUAS Green Line south of charlemont to heavy metro ? I thought that was the long term plan ? I can see buying some trams and a short term shuttle strategy ( forgot about the reversing siding )

yabadabado

trellheim wrote: »

Are we not switching LUAS Green Line south of charlemont to heavy metro ? I thought that was the long term plan ? I can see buying some trams and a short term shuttle strategy ( forgot about the reversing siding )

That's supposed to be the plan and makes sense with all the developments out that direction. I think it would increase pph to about double the current set up.

Quackster

trellheim wrote: »

Are we not switching LUAS Green Line south of charlemont to heavy metro ? I thought that was the long term plan ? I can see buying some trams and a short term shuttle strategy ( forgot about the reversing siding )

Yeah, my expectation is that when Metro North is built, the line south of Charlemont St will carry a mixture of metro to Swords and Luas to Broombridge.

Peregrine

Quackster wrote: »

Yeah, my expectation is that when Metro North is built, the line south of Charlemont St will carry a mixture of metro to Swords and Luas to Broombridge.

Maybe as a stop-gap until a solution for the Broombridge-SSG section is found. Even then, I wouldn't like to see it happen. It would hobble both sections of the metro line.

Middle Man

Peregrine wrote: »

Maybe as a stop-gap until a solution for the Broombridge-SSG section is found. Even then, I wouldn't like to see it happen. It would hobble both sections of the metro line.

Solution: Metro to UCD via the Wilton, Herbert and Donnybrook areas (serving a much greater number of workers and students) - Why mess around with a tram line (Stephen's Green to Sandyford) that's working perfectly fine?

D.L.R.

Middle Man wrote: »

Why mess around with a tram line (Stephen's Green to Sandyford) that's working perfectly fine?

Because its wasteful and inefficient using a high capacity heavy rail line as a low capacity tram route. Bit like having a motorway but only allowing scooters to use it.

AngryLips

Middle Man wrote: »

Solution: Metro to UCD via the Wilton, Herbert and Donnybrook areas (serving a much greater number of workers and students) - Why mess around with a tram line (Stephen's Green to Sandyford) that's working perfectly fine?

I think converting current green line to metro and extending the south end of what’s left of the green line towards Donnybrook and UCD would be a better idea, then maybe onwards to Blackrock

marno21

D.L.R. wrote: »

Because its wasteful and inefficient using a high capacity heavy rail line as a low capacity tram route. Bit like having a motorway but only allowing scooters to use it.

The Green Line from Ranelagh as far as at least Sandyford was built with Metro in mind, it's segregated with no on street running

I'd argue the opposite - having a high capacity rail line and running trams on it is a waste of resources - especially when there are capacity issues on said line

trellheim

what’s left of the green line towards Donnybrook and UCD would be a better idea, then maybe onwards to Blackrock

through the most expensive land in the country ?

Ref the above point I cant see the use of mixing Metro and LUAS on the same line thats hobbling both of them its not going to be a 4-track !

Stephen15

I think upgrading the Luas green line to Metro grade would cause too much disruption while being built. Firstly a chunk of Luas track would have to be removed to allow for tunnelling which I would imagine would cause 6 months to a year of either no Luas service or a limited Luas service.

Then platforms at existing stations would have to be raised and lengthened in order to accommodate longer heavy rail trains these platforms are only designed to take Luas trams and not heavy rail longer trains with higher platforms.

The line South of Sandyford is not suitable to take heavier trains either as between Central Park and Ballyogoan Wood there are plenty of open crossings and the line runs alongside the road and the line would have to be fenced off to prevent trespassers as it's heavy not light rail.

I agree that a line South to UCD would make more sense as it would have more demand look at how busy the buses going to UCD currently are.

Peregrine

Middle Man wrote: »

Solution: Metro to UCD via the Wilton, Herbert and Donnybrook areas (serving a much greater number of workers and students) - Why mess around with a tram line (Stephen's Green to Sandyford) that's working perfectly fine?

Because it's not working perfectly fine. There are major capacity issues while Charlemont to Sandyford is operating below its potential capacity. But you can't push a 90m tram every 2 minutes each way through Harcourt Steet, College Green and O'Connell Street so it will remain under-capacity. The capacity issues are only going to worsen when the 30,000 new residents move into Cherrywood and more apartments and offices come online in Sandyford. And there's potential for much more along that corridor. Unlike the UCD corridor, there are no QBCs to pick up the slack. There's no N11.

The section south of the canal can be upgraded to a full metro line easily and this was the plan from day one. When the green line was built, it was built to metro spec to connect with a future Metro North. It wasn't built to connect with a slow on-street Luas Cross City. That was a mistake.

A scaled down Metro North terminating at SSG was predicted to cost €2.4bn. Bringing the TBM out to Charlemont won't cost much more. So for a little bit more, you could unleash the potential of the segregated sections of the green line and get a full cross city metro line. I mean, it's sitting there waiting to be connected to Metro North. While the benefits of expanding out past UCD could justify the costs, believe me, we're not building anything with a pricetag of almost €4bn. Whereas linking with the metro-ready Green line is cheap and has a lot of benefits. Make no mistake, it's not a cheap and half-assed job. It's cheap and effective. The cost to benefit ratio is much much higher.

donvito99

Stephen15 wrote: »

I think upgrading the Luas green line to Metro grade would cause too much disruption while being built.

You're making a disruption argument and your proposed solution is to build an entirely different alignment that is supposedly less disruptive?

Firstly a chunk of Luas track would have to be removed to allow for tunnelling which I would imagine would cause 6 months to a year of either no Luas service or a limited Luas service.

I don't think this would be necessary, most if not all the work preparing the portal and tie in would not affect existing Green Line operations. A tie in could be anything from however long it took to lay track over the red line for BXD to a week or two.

Then platforms at existing stations would have to be raised and lengthened in order to accommodate longer heavy rail trains

Again, this really isn't that arduous a task when you consider that at the end of the day at least twice as many people will be using the line as before. If we go for the 80m proposal, it's likely we will just have, in essence, an 80m tram, and no works beyond lengthening the platforms (again) would have to be undertaken.

The line South of Sandyford is not suitable to take heavier trains either as between Central Park and Ballyogoan Wood there are plenty of open crossings and the line runs alongside the road and the line would have to be fenced off to prevent trespassers as it's heavy not light rail.

Here you are proposing to forget about doubling the capacity of the line for the sake of a half dozen road crossings. This is like terminating the southbound DART at Grand Canal Dock.

I agree that a line South to UCD would make more sense as it would have more demand look at how busy the buses going to UCD currently are.

So a brand spanking new line is going to be less disruptive than a relatively quick and easy upgrade, and that makes "more sense"?

Jamie2k9

I think the talk of the GL going to Metro is just that, any hopes of that passed a long time ago IMO.

donvito99

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I think the talk of the GL going to Metro is just that, any hopes of that passed a long time ago IMO.

The Times (Ireland edition) reported literally at the start of this month (a long time ago?) that a green line tie in is now under the scope of new MN.

Peregrine

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I think the talk of the GL going to Metro is just that, any hopes of that passed a long time ago IMO.

The Times Ireland reported earlier in the month that the Metro North redesign will be announced early next year and is expected to link up with the Green Line. They wouldn't report it if the NTA weren't considering it.

It's widely accepted now that it's back on the cards at the very least.

Anyway, was the original question about what happens to LCC in that scenario? I don't quite know but they could look at expanding it or terminating it. I think they found that expansion to Rathmines wouldn't be cost effective. One to think about anyway.

Jamie2k9

donvito99 wrote: »

The Times (Ireland edition) reported literally at the start of this month (a long time ago?) that a green line tie in is now under the scope of new MN.

Still wouldn't take much notice of what was reported, just look how many times MN has changed since first proposed....

donvito99

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

just look how many times MN has changed since first proposed....

Luas as originally proposed was Metro including the Green Line, it then became the half measure we know today.

Stephen15

donvito99 wrote: »

You're making a disruption argument and your proposed solution is to build an entirely different alignment that is supposedly less disruptive?

But a new alignment can't cause disruption to a service that does not exist.

I don't think this would be necessary, most if not all the work preparing the portal and tie in would not affect existing Green Line operations. A tie in could be anything from however long it took to lay track over the red line for BXD to a week or two.

A tunnel would be far more complex than an overground tie in like in the case of the Luas Red Line how do you run trams around tunnel.

Again, this really isn't that arduous a task when you consider that at the end of the day at least twice as many people will be using the line as before. If we go for the 80m proposal, it's likely we will just have, in essence, an 80m tram, and no works beyond lengthening the platforms (again) would have to be undertaken.

80m trams would be a poor choice they are not suitable for a metro operation. I would favour a proper metro similar to those in NYC, London, Paris, Berlin and a host of other cities rather than underground trams. Also many of the current Luas stops are small and would be unsuitable towards Metro operation. That proposal seems a little half arsed IMO.

Here you are proposing to forget about doubling the capacity of the line for the sake of a half dozen road crossings. This is like terminating the southbound DART at Grand Canal Dock.

But the DART is well segregated from roads this part of the Luas line runs alongside the road with little segregation. Level crossings on a metro that runs every 2-5 mins is far from ideal.

So a brand spanking new line is going to be less disruptive than a relatively quick and easy upgrade, and that makes "more sense"?

Again what disruption would a line that is not operation cause. My suggestion would be tunnelling from the CC to UCD under Lesson Street, Donnybrook and The N11. I know it would cost more I know but it would bring more long term benefits IMO than upgrading the Green line to Metro.

D.L.R.

marno21 wrote: »

I'd argue the opposite - having a high capacity rail line and running trams on it is a waste of resources - especially when there are capacity issues on said line

That's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sam Russell

Stephen15 wrote: »

But a new alignment can't cause disruption to a service that does not exist.



A tunnel would be far more complex than an overground tie in like in the case of the Luas Red Line how do you run trams around tunnel.


Again what disruption would a line that is not operation cause. My suggestion would be tunnelling from the CC to UCD under Lesson Street, Donnybrook and The N11. I know it would cost more I know but it would bring more long term benefits IMO than upgrading the Green line to Metro.

If you are running a tunnel out to UCD (about 3 km), why not make that Metro as well as Metro on the Green Line out to Sandyford and onto Brides Glen.

The Green Line (Luas) could go down Adelaide Road as far as Leeson St and terminate there, or continue to Merrion Square.

Consonata

Stephen15 wrote: »

Again what disruption would a line that is not operation cause. My suggestion would be tunnelling from the CC to UCD under Lesson Street, Donnybrook and The N11. I know it would cost more I know but it would bring more long term benefits IMO than upgrading the Green line to Metro.

It would be ideal, since it runs parallel to the dart, and then have Metro West come around to link the 2 together along with the green line.

However that would require some forward thinking.




:rolleyes:

Stephen15

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you are running a tunnel out to UCD (about 3 km), why not make that Metro as well as Metro on the Green Line out to Sandyford and onto Brides Glen.

The Green Line (Luas) could go down Adelaide Road as far as Leeson St and terminate there, or continue to Merrion Square.

In an ideal world maybe. I'm just saying I would prefer a heavy metro similar to the LU or the Paris over a light tram like metro.

I would extend the Luas to Sandymount instead of just Lesson Street.

salmocab

I'm a bit confused about the metro bit, is the suggestion that it comes overground somewhere between SSG and Ranelagh and continue on some distance along the Green line? Why do this, apart from the hassle with the recent extension the green line functions very well. Would it not make sense to stay U/G and tunnel on out between the current 2 lines via say harolds cross to terenure and terminate near my house? Obviously I know that the cost would be massive but it would mean not taking the tunneling machine out of the ground or abandoning it.

xper

Stephen15 wrote: »

A tunnel would be far more complex than an overground tie in like in the case of the Luas Red Line how do you run trams around tunnel.

You seem to be making the incorrect assumption that the tunnel portal has to be built on the current green line alignment. It would be constructed adjacent to it (the Nationwide House site has been suggested) and the running line then diverted into it in a fairly quick, minimally disruptive operation. They essentially did exactly this at the Sandyford stop when tying in the Bride's Glen extension (and that even included changing the platform arrangement).

Metro North is light rail, not heavy rail, and the the spec has always been that Luas and Metro vehicles would be able to run on the green line. The stops just need to be extended, a job they carried out already this year between SSG and Sandyford without disruption.

Does running Metro-length vehicles along Ballyboden Road really present new issues that don't exist now? Luas trams travel at moderately high speed on this stretch right now. An 80/90m vehicle is going to block a roadway for only an inconsequential couple of seconds more than a 55m one.
If frequency goes up, as it is likely have to do when the Cherrywood new town is built, they may want to look at closing off a couple of access roads and providing alternative routes for residents but that would be disruptive to local road users, not the rail service. This is the same whether the line is a Luas or Metro service.

In short, your concerns that Luas green line services would not be able to continue throughout upgrading of the line to metro standard are unfounded.

xper

salmocab wrote: »

I'm a bit confused about the metro bit, is the suggestion that it comes overground somewhere between SSG and Ranelagh and continue on some distance along the Green line? Why do this, apart from the hassle with the recent extension the green line functions very well. Would it not make sense to stay U/G and tunnel on out between the current 2 lines via say harolds cross to terenure and terminate near my house? Obviously I know that the cost would be massive but it would mean not taking the tunneling machine out of the ground or abandoning it.

Future capacity requirement is why. The Green Line is getting a c.50% increase in capacity over the next year as the current fleet is expanded and lengthened but that will only solve the current temporary issues plus provide some overhead to absorb the new passengers from the early phases of the enormous new development in Cherrywood. But the completed Cherrywood project will be an absolutely huge trip generator (remember it includes big commercial and retail space as well as residential) and then there is the small matter of the planned extension south to Shankill and Fassaroe/Bray.That absolutely requires massively higher capacity than Luas can provide at maximum frequency.

As you say yourself, the green line functions very well. If that is to continue, you can't just leave it as is, have to invest in it. Can you imagine what we'd be saying about DART if they were still running a mix of two- and four-carriage trains at rush hour as was the case when it opened in the '80s?

Fortunately, the green line was designed and built to be upgraded to metro from the outset so the investment required for a major benefit is minimal.
On the other hand, an underground line out to Terenure would be wonderful for that wedge of the southern suburbs between the red and green line but the cost is much, much higher.

MJohnston

salmocab wrote: »

I'm a bit confused about the metro bit, is the suggestion that it comes overground somewhere between SSG and Ranelagh and continue on some distance along the Green line? Why do this, apart from the hassle with the recent extension the green line functions very well. Would it not make sense to stay U/G and tunnel on out between the current 2 lines via say harolds cross to terenure and terminate near my house? Obviously I know that the cost would be massive but it would mean not taking the tunneling machine out of the ground or abandoning it.

Two big reasons - it would be - relatively speaking - extremely cheap to upgrade Ranelagh to Bride's Glen to Metro (as the Green Line was already built to Metro standard for the most part), and it would only require 1km or so extra of tunnelling to connect with the Metro North line below SSG.

So for very small amount of extra add-on costs (and time) to the Metro North project, you also get to upgrade the Green Line south of Ranelagh to Metro. The benefits here are plentiful ranging all the way from the PR and political advantages of being able to sell "Dublin Metro" as a whole project with a much bigger footprint for little extra cost, to fixing the capacity problems that the Green Line was already facing before Cross City was added on.

And if the Green Line now operates Broombridge to SSG only, then you free a huge amount of capacity up there for a northern extension on that line out through Finglas.

marno21

D.L.R. wrote: »

That's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Apologies - I'd better go to Specsavers

Victor

Has it been suggested that Metro will extend south of Sandyford?

Note that while lots of people are expected to live in Cherrywood, they won't all be heading to the city centre.

Sam Russell

Victor wrote: »

Has it been suggested that Metro will extend south of Sandyford?

Note that while lots of people are expected to live in Cherrywood, they won't all be heading to the city centre.

If Metro gets to Sandyford, it will go as far as Brides Glen. It would probably then get extended to Bray.

trellheim

the old alignments been built on hasn't it ? Thats an interesting point - I wonder if they'd gauge the Metro to Irish broad gauge. I suspect not