Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

bk

D.L.R. wrote: »

I think Dublin needs longer trains than Copenhagen. Copenhagen already had a great S-Train network to integrate into, Dublin doesn't. Our Metro will have more to do.

Yep and we are. Copenhagem Metro trains are just 39m long. We seem to be going for 60m, with 90m capability.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And this is always the Irish attitude to planning that kills us.

Why should it not be the same size as much larger cities???

Why not future proof completely?

We need to stop this village mentality. Build it big, build it properly. It's very simple.

But we are. Paris has 14 lines. 12 have 70m trains and 2 have 90m. We seem to be heading towards building a system with 60m trains at start, but 90m capability. Really quiet good.

Your other comments aren't true either. Luas was pretty future proofed, over time we have gone from 30m trams to 40m trams to 55m trams now without too much difficulty and the green line was designed to be future proofed to be upgraded to Metro in future, which they are planning to do now with Metrolink.

Also Luas Green line as far as I can see, is actually the highest capacity tram lines in the world. Higher capacity then the busiest tram lines in Berlin and Vienna! It really is very impressive.

And the specs for the Metrolink look pretty world class too. Their is no village mentality here, it looks to be a really good system they are planning.

D.L.R.

If a 60-90m system is sufficient for Metrolink, its no longer clear why the Dart Underground route requires Dart-sized trains and platforms.

All you need are Metro vehicles with Irish gauge bogies (or perhaps tech is now there for a dual gauge system)

bk

D.L.R. wrote: »

If a 60-90m system is sufficient for Metrolink, its no longer clear why the Dart Underground route requires Dart-sized trains and platforms.

All you need are Metro vehicles with Irish gauge bogies.

That is called a 4 carriage DART

I was sort of thinking that myself previously. There isn't really that much difference between a 4 carriage DART and a high specced Metro.

DART is a good example of why longer isn't always better. Frequency is usually preferred over a less frequent but longer train, it is one of the reasons Luas is so popular (also reliability and consistency).

DART was originally 4 carriages, about 90m or so. I'm sure the planners would have preferred to increase the frequency while keeping the shorter trains, as that would have kept costs down on expanding platforms, etc. But that wasn't an option due to DART sharing track with commuter and intercity. Just too complex for a mass transit style frequency. So they went with what they could and made the trains longer. But it isn't ideal.

And it will make DU a lot more expensive, as it will require much larger station boxes.

The issue though, was under the original DU plans. Trains running through the DU tunnel will continue up the Northern Line and out west too. Outside of the tunnel, they will be interacting with those Commuter and Intercity trains, in particular on the northern line. So while you could build DU with just 90m platforms and 4 carriage DARTs, you wouldn't be able to match the required frequency of 5 minutes or less on the northern line, in order to make up for the shorter DARTs.

Of course maybe they will change the plans for DU now, what with Metrolink and an interchange station at Cross and Guns. Perhaps instead of DU, you have a East - West Metro line going Lucan - Heuston - Christchurch - Tara - Ringsend. Or perhaps Lucan - Heuston - Christchurch - Tara - Connolly - Dublin Port

90m trains operating at a very high frequency. Yes the downside would be it would require some people coming in from the West to transfer and it doesn't completely solve issues around the Loop line bridge and Connolly.

I'm not saying this is something we should definitely do, but it is an interesting idea and worth considering.

CatInABox

The more I look at it, the more Dart Underground needs three/four tracking north of Docklands/Connolly.

D.L.R.

Thanks for the detailed response. A few points:

bk wrote: »

There isn't really that much difference between a 4 carriage DART and a high specced Metro.

Darts are taller and wider. DU originally had full size mainline tunnels to fit existing Dart stock, IIRC. That's Crossrail scale. There's no real need for a tunnel that wide imo.

Regards platform length, DU planned full sized Dart platforms, around 180m. Again, this is a totally unnecessary capital cost.

The issue though, was under the original DU plans. Trains running through the DU tunnel will continue up the Northern Line and out west too. Outside of the tunnel, they will be interacting with those Commuter and Intercity trains, in particular on the northern line. So while you could build DU with just 90m platforms and 4 carriage DARTs, you wouldn't be able to match the required frequency of 5 minutes or less on the northern line, in order to make up for the shorter DARTs.

Its certainly possible to run a metro service on the 4-track Kildare line. At the other end, you could run metro frequency as far as Clontarf Road. Northern Darts could divert to Spencer Dock, removing the Connolly conflict.

Its not perfect, but we shouldn't let the great be the enemy of the good, which I feel we have done with DU.

Of course maybe they will change the plans for DU now, what with Metrolink and an interchange station at Cross and Guns. Perhaps instead of DU, you have a East - West Metro line going Lucan - Heuston - Christchurch - Tara - Ringsend. Or perhaps Lucan - Heuston - Christchurch - Tara - Connolly - Dublin Port

90m trains operating at a very high frequency. Yes the downside would be it would require some people coming in from the West to transfer and it doesn't completely solve issues around the Loop line bridge and Connolly.

I'm not saying this is something we should definitely do, but it is an interesting idea and worth considering.

Interesting alternative but as you say doesn’t address the Connolly conflict.

To bring it back on topic, a smaller DU tunnel would of course mean a much cheaper interchange with Metrolink at SSG.

bk

D.L.R. wrote: »

Darts are taller and wider. DU originally had full size mainline tunnels to fit existing Dart stock, IIRC. That's Crossrail scale. There's no real need for a tunnel that wide imo.

That's very true. The Crossrail trains are 205m but close enough and true on taller and wider. All sorts of overkill for a Metro type service.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Regards platform length, DU planned full sized Dart platforms, about 180m I believe. Again, this is way over the scale required and enormously expensive for no real reason.

Yep, it would need to, 8 carriage DARTs are around 180m and ramp up station costs.

If you think about a 4 carriage DART every 5 minutes is the same capacity as an 8 carriage every 10 minutes. Get that 4 carriage down to 2.5 minute frequency and you have double the current DARTs capacity.

One issue would be if they order lots of new trains for the Dart Expansion plan, they may then be stuck with those for the tunnel.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Its certainly possible to run a metro service on the 4-track Kildare line. At the other end, you could run metro frequency as far as Clontarf Road. Northern Darts could divert to Spencer Dock, removing the Connolly conflict.

Its not perfect, but we shouldn't let the great be the enemy of the good, which I feel we have done with DU.

True on Kildare, Clontarf Road, uhhh.. that is a very interesting idea...

You basically turn Clontarf Road into a major interchange station. One issue, folks on the Northern line heading to Pearse, or further south (and vice versa) would need two changes.

Clontarf Road to DU train to Connolly and back on a southbound DART now. I'd forsee a great amount of objections to that. One change might be bearable, but two where people currently have one might be a step too far.

Definitely an interesting idea.

D.L.R. wrote: »

To bring it back on topic, a smaller DU tunnel would of course mean a much cheaper interchange with Metrolink at SSG.

Yep, also I could perhaps see the interchange happening at Tara, shorten the tunnel, more money saved.

Certainly lots of different options become possible if you start to rethink the DU plans.

D.L.R.

bk wrote: »

One issue would be if they order lots of new trains for the Dart Expansion plan, they may then be stuck with those for the tunnel.

Indeed, forward planning is a beautiful thing.

bk wrote: »

True on Kildare, Clontarf Road, uhhh.. that is a very interesting idea...

You basically turn Clontarf Road into a major interchange station. One issue, folks on the Northern line heading to Pearse, or further south (and vice versa) would need two changes.[.quote]

Clontarf Road to DU train to Connolly and back on a southbound DART now. I'd forsee a great amount of objections to that. One change might be bearable, but two where people currently have one might be a step too far.

Definitely an interesting idea.

With the right stock you could just run some DU/Metro services directly up the northern line:

Service 1: Adamstown - SSG - Clontarf Road (4 car, Metro, 8tph)
Service 2: Hazelhatch - SSG - Howth/Malahide (4 car, Metro, 4tph)
Service 3: Spencer Dock - Howth/Malahide (8 car, Mainline, 4tph)

That’s a 5 min frequency in the core and mops up most of the northern line. You'd need 4 tracks between Clontarf and Spencer though.

strassenwo!f

As it has most weeks over the last few months, since this metro plan appeared, the question of a possible rationale behind the current plan in Dublin has popped into my head occasionally this week.

As I have said before on this thread, the metrolink.ie people envisage a northbound demand of 11,000 per hour in 2037, and 13,000 per hour in 2057. This implies an approximate demand of 12,000 per hour in 2047.

There were posts above, in the last couple of pages of this thread, about the metro having a potential capacity of 18,000 (if 60m vehicles were used at 40 trams per hour) and even of a capacity of 21,000 (if 90m vehicles were used at the same throughput) along what is now the Southside Green LUAS line.

I've no reason to doubt those figures, but they are far beyond what appears to be needed on that corridor for many decades - perhaps even into the next century. That level of service is well beyond what the current metrolink documentation envisages.

We also know that there are several cities in Europe which run a tram service of 30+ trams per hour (tph) along sections which involve a number of street crossings. It is certainly true that none of the ones I've seen have a 55m tram, but they do have quite a number of street crossings.

Is it really possible that a city like Berlin can have a 30tph throughput along a city centre stretch of a number of kilometres, with perhaps a dozen road crossings, albeit with shorter 30-40m trams, and yet Dublin is stumped (and apparently needs to upgrade to a metro) by a stretch where there are now just 20 55m tph and just one road crossing?

Assuming that a solution to that one road crossing can be found, and the LUAS can then start to build towards a 30 tph service at peak times, then there are around two and a half decades for Dublin to try to develop other areas of south Dublin as a spin-off of the very welcome metro project.

A metro between Swords, the airport, the city, and probably two termini in the south-west of the city, would seem to be a feasible goal, in the period from now to around 2043.

Something like that would be very beneficial for the whole city, and might well help to offset the disruption when the Green line actually does need to be upgraded, in the mid-2040's or so.

antoinolachtnai

If you left the Green Line alone, were to add an extra metro line to the southwest, which crossed the Green Line, what impact (negative, positive or neutral) do you think that would have on the demand on the Green Line?

Dats me

strassenwo!f wrote: »

As it has most weeks over the last few months, since this metro plan appeared, the question of a possible rationale behind the current plan in Dublin has popped into my head occasionally this week.

As I have said before on this thread, the metrolink.ie people envisage a northbound demand of 11,000 per hour in 2037, and 13,000 per hour in 2057. This implies an approximate demand of 12,000 per hour in 2047.

There were posts above, in the last couple of pages of this thread, about the metro having a potential capacity of 18,000 (if 60m vehicles were used at 40 trams per hour) and even of a capacity of 21,000 (if 90m vehicles were used at the same throughput) along what is now the Southside Green LUAS line.

I've no reason to doubt those figures, but they are far beyond what appears to be needed on that corridor for many decades - perhaps even into the next century. That level of service is well beyond what the current metrolink documentation envisages.

We also know that there are several cities in Europe which run a tram service of 30+ trams per hour (tph) along sections which involve a number of street crossings. It is certainly true that none of the ones I've seen have a 55m tram, but they do have quite a number of street crossings.

Is it really possible that a city like Berlin can have a 30tph throughput along a city centre stretch of a number of kilometres, with perhaps a dozen road crossings, albeit with shorter 30-40m trams, and yet Dublin is stumped (and apparently needs to upgrade to a metro) by a stretch where there are now just 20 55m tph and just one road crossing?

Assuming that a solution to that one road crossing can be found, and the LUAS can then start to build towards a 30 tph service at peak times, then there are around two and a half decades for Dublin to try to develop other areas of south Dublin as a spin-off of the very welcome metro project.

A metro between Swords, the airport, the city, and probably two termini in the south-west of the city, would seem to be a feasible goal, in the period from now to around 2043.

Something like that would be very beneficial for the whole city, and might well help to offset the disruption when the Green line actually does need to be upgraded, in the mid-2040's or so.

I thought it was shown previously that they're only doing 20 grams per hour in Berlin.

Can you prove that they're doing more than 30 please? You posted it, the burden of proof is on you. You bring nothing to the discussion by just stating that it's happening without backing it up.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you left the Green Line alone, were to add an extra metro line to the southwest, which crossed the Green Line, what impact (negative, positive or neutral) do you think that would have on the demand on the Green Line?

A post asking me about leaving the Green line alone, or crossing the Green line?

I do not have the skills to answer the questions posted here. Sorry.

strassenwo!f

Dats me wrote: »

I thought it was shown previously that they're only doing 20 grams per hour in Berlin.

Can you prove that they're doing more than 30 please? You posted it, the burden of proof is on you. You bring nothing to the discussion by just stating that it's happening without backing it up.

They're doing 30 trams per hour in Berlin. In Dublin, 20 tph seems to be the max. I can show you that some time, but if you look back a few days on this thread there's a link, and that would save you and me lots of time. I'm going to be busy. but some other poster may help you with the link.

strassenwo!f

Dats me wrote: »

I thought it was shown previously that they're only doing 20 grams per hour in Berlin.

Can you prove that they're doing more than 30 please? You posted it, the burden of proof is on you. You bring nothing to the discussion by just stating that it's happening without backing it up.

Post 497 on this thread should provide you with the relevant information about where to look at the throughput at that location we were talking about in Berlin, with 30 tph per direction. (Other websites will show you the throughput in several other European cities, like Vienna, also mentioned in this thread, where the same, or greater, throughputs are being achieved).

And Google Earth, or Google Maps, for example, will help you to get an idea of the number of street crossings involved.

I hope that helps.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you left the Green Line alone, were to add an extra metro line to the southwest, which crossed the Green Line, what impact (negative, positive or neutral) do you think that would have on the demand on the Green Line?

I've slept on it, and I think I may have some better idea of what you are saying here with your comment about 'crossing the Green line' - though Antoin you really should try to be clearer.

I would envisage that the metro would travel between Swords and (probably) two destinations in the Southwest/central of the city (Rathfarnham and Walkintown, for example), the southside bit of that being developed over the next two decades (to around 2035-2040 or so). That line would at some point, as you say, 'cross' (i.e go under) the current Green line - perhaps at St. Stephen's Green, where there would be an interchange.

That way you'd develop rapid transport to a number of high density areas of south Dublin over the next two decades, before Dublin needs to do any major infrastructural work on the Green line.

An interchange between those metro lines and the LUAS green line - i.e where they 'cross', as I think you're saying - would probably be at St. Stephen's Green, allowing Green line passengers to get all the way between Cherrywood and the Airport/Swords (or any of those destinations in the southwest) with just one change.

And what impact would that have on the Green line?

Well many other cities have many tram/metro lines and there is competition between them, so I'd guess that development of lines to the southwest/central area of Dublin would reduce pressure n the Green line, as people somewhere around the border of the Green line or a Rathmines metro catchment would probably choose the metro as a way into town (broadly, it would be quicker). Thus, it would be positive for the Green line, as it would reduce numbers on any one tram on the Green line..

People prefer trams and metros to buses, for whatever reason, even in situations where the bus provides a similarly quick service. Although the 46A provides an excellent service along the Stillorgan Road, there is no doubt in my mind that eventual development of a LUAS corridor along there would reduce the pressure on the Green line still further, and deliver a LUAS 'level' of transport to, for example, the 'other' end of Stillorgan, Belfield, Donnybrook. A line like that would massively reduce pressure on the Green line.

CatInABox

Once again, Strassenwo!f disappears for a few days, then reappears and ignores most of what was put to him.

Green line can't take more than what's on it right now, as per the NTA. You can ignore this all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

The cities with 30 trams per hour are only doing so in the city centre, with a very low speed limit. 30 trams per hour out in the suburbs will actually cause more delays, as tram speed has to be reduced when one tram gets close to the next. That'll have a massive knock on affect all along the length of the green line.

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

Once again, Strassenwo!f disappears for a few days, then reappears and ignores most of what was put to him.

Green line can't take more than what's on it right now, as per the NTA. You can ignore this all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

The cities with 30 trams per hour are only doing so in the city centre, with a very low speed limit. 30 trams per hour out in the suburbs will actually cause more delays, as tram speed has to be reduced when one tram gets close to the next. That'll have a massive knock on affect all along the length of the green line.

But in Berlin etc

antoinolachtnai

First, welcome back.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've slept on it, and I think I may have some better idea of what you are saying here with your comment about 'crossing the Green line' - though Antoin you really should try to be clearer.

I would envisage that the metro would travel between Swords and (probably) two destinations in the Southwest/central of the city (Rathfarnham and Walkintown, for example), the southside bit of that being developed over the next two decades (to around 2035-2040 or so). That line would at some point, as you say, 'cross' (i.e go under) the current Green line - perhaps at St. Stephen's Green, where there would be an interchange.


And what impact would that have on the Green line?

Well many other cities have many tram/metro lines and there is competition between them, so I'd guess that development of lines to the southwest/central area of Dublin would reduce pressure n the Green line, as people somewhere around the border of the Green line or a Rathmines metro catchment would probably choose the metro as a way into town (broadly, it would be quicker). Thus, it would be positive for the Green line, as it would reduce numbers on any one tram on the Green line..

I think the opposite would happen. A metro Line would result in a significant increase in traffic on the green line.

A small number of journeys would be substituted away from the Green Line, sure, but mostly the opposite would happen. For example people would travel to the airport on green line + metro rather than taking a taxi or bus. It would become viable to commute to Swords from Dundrum to Swords and vice versa by public transport for the first time. Equally a commute from dundrum to the southwest would now be viable. Or the reverse. You could live in Templeogue and commute by metro and luas to the Beacon Hospital for instance.

The problem is that the green line would not be able to deal with the extra demand. It would continue to be constrained by road crossings and narrow vehicles.

It is a recipe for disaster.

Although the 46A provides an excellent service along the Stillorgan Road, there is no doubt in my mind that eventual development of a LUAS corridor along there would reduce the pressure on the Green line still further, and deliver a LUAS 'level' of transport to, for example, the 'other' end of Stillorgan, Belfield, Donnybrook. A line like that would massively reduce pressure on the Green line.

You would spend €800 million or more to replace a perfectly good bus service, and to disrupt a national route for three years, all to avoid a €200m upgrade of the Green Line?

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

First, welcome back.

Thank you very much, Antoin, but I haven't actually been anywhere.

Any time I've looked at this thread during the last week, I've been watching in astonishment as the poster bk tells us about the potential capacity of the Green line. All stuff we already know. As I have said several times, I'm not against an eventual upgrade of the Green line, but an upgrade doesn't seem to be necessary as part of the metrolink scheme

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think the opposite would happen. A metro Line would result in a significant increase in traffic on the green line.

A small number of journeys would be substituted away from the Green Line, sure, but mostly the opposite would happen. For example people would travel to the airport on green line + metro rather than taking a taxi or bus. It would become viable to commute to Swords from Dundrum to Swords and vice versa by public transport for the first time. Equally a commute from dundrum to the southwest would now be viable. Or the reverse. You could live in Templeogue and commute by metro and luas to the Beacon Hospital for instance.

Cherrywood to/from the Airport journeys are a tiny fraction of the journeys which will be undertaken on any LUAS or metro line on the southside. Journeys to/from the Airport from places like Swords or Ballymun, or perhaps a couple of other places on the northside, are relevant, because they would be undertaken every day. The direct Cherrywood/Sandyford - Airport connection is irrelevant, because it is being done on only an occassional basis, by very few people.

It would make sense, for example, for a young IT whizz from Swords or Ballymun to get the meto/LUAS from Swords or Ballymun to Sandyford or Cherrywood in the morning peak. That would be against the main flow of traffic on the southside, and would involve a change. I can't see a problem.

Similarly, your example of a person of a person from Templeogue going to the Beacon in Sandyford. Largely against the flow of traffic. An early morning trip with the flow of traffic between Templeogue and St. Stephen's Green, probably before the peak time, then a change onto the LUAS to at St. Stephen's Green and a journey against the main flow of traffic to Sandyford.

Only a taxi ride could be easier.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is that the green line would not be able to deal with the extra demand. It would continue to be constrained by road crossings and narrow vehicles.

It is a recipe for disaster.

As I have pointed out, other cities seem to manage with on-street trams with a throughput of 30+ trams per hour at peak times.

We have metrolink.ie's projected figures for the years to 2057. It appears that the Green line will be able to cope with a capacity of up to 12,000 (30 tph) to around 2047. Let's upgrade in the years slightly before then, and in the meantime deliver high quality rail-based transport to other unserved areas of the city.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You would spend €800 million or more to replace a perfectly good bus service, and to disrupt a national route for three years, all to avoid a €200m upgrade of the Green Line?

No, no, I don't think it is necessary to build a LUAS line along the N11, but with peoples' preference for LUAS, metro or rail services, over the service provided by the bus, it was an illustration of how demand for the Green LUAS could be reduced yet further.

For the moment we have the metrolink.ie figures, which indicate that - with appropriate measures, like a short LUAS spur to/from Baggot Street Bridge - there's no need to upgrade the Green LUAS until the mid-2040's. I think it would be useful to spend the interim years delivering high quality public transport to other areas of Dublin, like the south-west/central area.

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thank you very much, Antoin, but I haven't actually been anywhere.

Any time I've looked at this thread during the last week, I've been watching in astonishment as the poster bk tells us about the potential capacity of the Green line. All stuff we already know. As I have said several times, I'm not against an eventual upgrade of the Green line, but an upgrade doesn't seem to be necessary as part of the metrolink scheme

Well the experts at TII, the engineers who built and run the Luas say it is:

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/metrolink-nta-tii-public-consultation-document.pdf

page 10:

"The extension of the Green Line in December 2017 to include Luas Cross City has already seen a significant increase in passenger numbers over the entire route of the Green Line. In addition, as areas such as Cherrywood and Sandyford are further developed in the coming years, the passenger demand on the Green Line will further increase. Analysis undertaken with the NTA’s Regional Transport Model indicates that by 2027, the level of demand on the line will exceed the carrying capacity of the Luas system, even with the introduction of longer
trams."

http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

"5.1
Line B (Ranelagh to Sandyford)/Segregation
The existing Luas Green Line is limited to running a maximum of 24 TPH. This limitation is driven by the non-segregated nature of the line and in particular the need for vehicles to stop at at-grade crossings at Dunville Avenue and St Raphaela’s Road.

In order to achieve the increased frequency of services to 30/40 TPH required for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, it will be necessary to completely segregate the line from any interface with road and pedestrian traffic. "

These are the words from the planners and engineers of TII, the experts in this area. End of story.

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

As I have pointed out, other cities seem to manage with on-street trams with a throughput of 30+ trams per hour at peak times.

The Line with 30TPH in Berlin:
- Max tram length is only 30m, versus 54m for Luas
- Hourly capacity of the line in Berlin is actually a 1,000 people less per hour then Luas at 24 TPH frequency.
- The Berlin actually isn't one line, it is an area of only a few hundred meters where a couple of different lines merge in the city centre and split again. Completely different for a 20km Green line.
- Luas is actually one of the highest capacity tram lines in the world. More capacity then the busiest lines in both Berlin and Vieanna!

And most importantly the planners at TII say that the Luas line is already at it's maximum capacity.

antoinolachtnai

This is the problem. When you increase the number of stops on the frequent rail system, you will have an increase in traffic across the whole network.

The reason is that there are many more potential destinations as a result.

The Green Line as it stands today can’t cope with such an increase. That’s why it definitely needs to be upgraded if there is to be a southwest metro.

salmocab

What amazes me is that someone would keep quoting that TII project certain projected numbers and use that as a base for their argument but ignore what the same planners say in the same paragraph about the amount of trams an hour that can run.
It’s classic cherry picking of facts to suit your argument.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

What amazes me is that someone would keep quoting that TII project certain projected numbers and use that as a base for their argument but ignore what the same planners say in the same paragraph about the amount of trams an hour that can run.

Could you write that in a couple, or perhaps three or more, sentences, so that we could have an idea of what you mean. It would help a lot.

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Could you write that in a couple, or perhaps three or more, sentences, so that we could have an idea of what you mean. It would help a lot.

It’s missing commas but it’s just one sentence.
If I was picking holes in peoples punctuation I wouldn’t have put commas before and after the word ‘sentences’.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

It’s missing commas but it’s just one sentence.
If I was picking holes in peoples punctuation I wouldn’t have put commas before and after the word ‘sentences’.

I absolutely don't pick holes for grammar purposes. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I absolutely don't pick holes for grammar purposes. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

You understand well enough.

Sam Russell

Mod: I know this thread is about 'alternative routes' and that allows a bit of latitude, but it certainly is not about 'alternative facts'. Can you take the Metrolink documentation as facts, and not fiction. If they say 24 tph is the max, then that is a fact beyond argument.

strassenwo!f

Sam, we haven't been discussing what the current rules are in Ireland, we've been talking about what is happening in other cities.

And it is surely not in dispute that other cties are running 30 (thirty) trams per hour along sections of their networks, at peak times.

JohnC.

Shorter trams on just a section rather than a full line. As has been said many, many times at this point.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Sam, we haven't been discussing what the current rules are in Ireland, we've been talking about what is happening in other cities.

@Strassenwolf:
And it is surely not in dispute that other cties are running 30 (thirty) trams per hour along sections of their networks, at peak times.

Apart from discussing Mod instructions, it is only you that has been proposing 30 tph is possible.

Now 30 tph means a tram every two minutes passing at any point, while 24 tph is a tram every three minutes. In places in Europe, trams hit junctions at 30 km/h because the traffic lights anticipate the tram and the lights change in favour of them at the last moment and the rest of the traffic understands that the trams will not be getting out of the way. Also the trams are half the length.

I think that if we get 24 tph with the current batch of taxi drivers, car drivers, bus drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, we will be doing well. Jumping red lights, ignoring yellow boxes, pedestrians wandering across the road - all of this is endemic on city centre streets. If you add in the inaction of those charged with enforcing the rules, then it is mayhem out there.

I think you must accept that in Ireland, even 24 tph is optimistic.

Consider the 30 tph discussion closed.