Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

<snip>

The tram would have to wait up to 120 seconds for the other tram to come along.

In this time another tram will catch up with the first tram. This will mean that there won’t be an even gap between trams.

If the gap between trams isn’t kept even, you won’t get the benefit of the capacity that the extra frequency is supposed to bring.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Are you planning this manouver would be required in Sandyford as well? And again at Harcourt Street?

The best thing is for you to model up your proposed schedule and interactions in a package like Excel. See if you can get it to work.

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

<snip>

If a tram has to wait up to 4 minutes for the tram to come fromthe opposite direction then it will certainly impact on the length of every passenger’s journey.

If the timing is uneven then the passengers will not load evenly. That means that having more trams won’t necessarily result in more capacity. What you might have is dangerous overcrowding of platforms.



But with an average delay of maybe 1 minutes at each level crossing, their journey is going to take three minutes longer to get to the Harcourt St stop from Sandyford and quite likely much longer,. The punter doesn’t get to her destination any sooner.

The whole thing becomes counterproductive. More trains results in slower journeys and reduced capacity under your proposal.

Can you show us your modeling on this if you still believe you are right?

If you cannot then I cannot see why we are debating the idea of 30tph again. You keep stating it is possible, but refusing to present any realistic model.

Sam Russell

Mod: Strassenwolf posts deleted as still talking about 30 tph despite being told not to. If it continues action will be taken.

D.L.R.

A tram can't do the job of a metro kids. The luas (dumb name) represents the moronic Fianna Failures shafting Dublin while they built an oversized motorway system in their country & western heartlands.

CatInABox

D.L.R. wrote: »

A tram can't do the job of a metro kids. The luas (dumb name) represents the moronic Fianna Failures shafting Dublin while they built an oversized motorway system in their country & western heartlands.

In fairness to FF, all Irish parties do the same. Just look at Eamon Ryan of the greens, who once supported the upgrade of the Green Line, but now doesn't because he's chasing votes. It's utterly depressing that they're all at it.

D.L.R.

CatInABox wrote: »

In fairness to FF, all Irish parties do the same. Just look at Eamon Ryan of the greens, who once supported the upgrade of the Green Line, but now doesn't because he's chasing votes. It's utterly depressing that they're all at it.

Nah. FF can't design urban projects for sh*t. Clueless country bumpkins who don't understand cities and don't care about Dublin.

Not a fan of FG either, but Metrolink is far more sensible than anything FF proposed.

Agree about Eamon Ryan though, get a grip Eamon.

Idbatterim

D.L.R. wrote: »

A tram can't do the job of a metro kids. The luas (dumb name) represents the moronic Fianna Failures shafting Dublin while they built an oversized motorway system in their country & western heartlands.

It’s totally agree. But those morons actually probably thought what they provided at the time was adequate. Massively over capacity motorways and now you can’t even get onto a luas at peak times. Do you guys not remember about 4/5 years back those morons wanted a lord of the rings type trek out to the airport at surface via some bull**** route !

Pelvis

https://rethinkmetrolink.ie/

These guys were handing out leaflets at Beechwood this morning. I don't really know anything about these lines, is there any truth to their point that the green line could be closed for between 9-24 months?

Qrt

Pelvis wrote: »

https://rethinkmetrolink.ie/

These guys were handing out leaflets at Beechwood this morning. I don't really know anything about these lines, is there any truth to their point that the green line could be closed for between 9-24 months?

Leaflets aren't worth the paper they're printed on. There probably will be a closure of some sort, but imo it'll likely to be some stations closed for a while with trams running through non-stop. 24 months is rubbish.

strassenwo!f

It seems that we're not allowed mention the throughputs which are being done in other European cities, when discussing the proposed upgrade of the Green line.

Is everybody who is forbidding such discussion fully confident that they have sufficient expertise to say that Ireland is not capable of throughputs which seem to be quite common on continental Europe?

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It seems that we're not allowed mention the throughputs which are being done in other European cities, when discussing the proposed upgrade of the Green line.

Is everybody who is forbidding such discussion fully confident that they have sufficient expertise to say that Ireland is not capable of throughputs which seem to be quite common on continental Europe?

On here? Can't speak for everyone, but probably not. However, I trust the NTA and TII when it comes to these things, and believe their figures, based upon their expertise in building and running the Green Line.

Dats me

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It seems that we're not allowed mention the throughputs which are being done in other European cities, when discussing the proposed upgrade of the Green line.

Is everybody who is forbidding such discussion fully confident that they have sufficient expertise to say that Ireland is not capable of throughputs which seem to be quite common on continental Europe?

I think it's pretty clear that we should assume that TII aren't lying in their public documentation.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It seems that we're not allowed mention the throughputs which are being done in other European cities, when discussing the proposed upgrade of the Green line.

Is everybody who is forbidding such discussion fully confident that they have sufficient expertise to say that Ireland is not capable of throughputs which seem to be quite common on continental Europe?

Mod: As has been pointed out you several times that the Metrolink documentatio is considered to be compiled by experts. Annecdotes about European cities arrangements are not relevant.

Pease do not keep bringing up this stuff.

strassenwo!f

Dats me wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that we should assume that TII aren't lying in their public documentation.

I feel I have to respond to this, as there is a suggestion here that I am saying, suggesting or implying that somebody is lying.

I categorically am not.

If I had asked a question a year ago about whether abortion was legal in Ireland, the truthful answer would have been that it was not. If I asked the same question now the truthful answer would be that it is.

Rules change.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I feel I have to respond to this, as there is a suggestion here that I am saying, suggesting or implying that somebody is lying.

I categorically am not.

If I had asked a question a year ago about whether abortion was legal in Ireland, the truthful answer would have been that it was not. If I asked the same question now the truthful answer would be that it is.

Rules change.

Mod: No suggestion is being made as to the veracity of your posts. All that is being said is that the Metrolink documentation is to be taken as correct. If the systems used in Germany, Switzerland, or France allow them to get higher throughput, then that might be for other operational reasons not available here in Ireland. For example, if trams might get full priority at junctions, or perhaps all traffic is banned on the tramways, then these factors affect throughput. Another factor to take into account is the interaction with pedestrians. Safety is paramount, and that also affects throughput.

Please give it a rest, or you will be given one. This is a final warning on this matter.

Rules do not change here!

Marcusm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I feel I have to respond to this, as there is a suggestion here that I am saying, suggesting or implying that somebody is lying.

I categorically am not.

If I had asked a question a year ago about whether abortion was legal in Ireland, the truthful answer would have been that it was not. If I asked the same question now the truthful answer would be that it is.

Rules change.

While the rules have changed, your categorical answer a year ago would have been wrong - abortion was lawful under the 8th amendment in specific circumstances where there was a grave danger to the life of the mother. This was confirmed in the Supreme Court decision in the X case.

This is the type of nuance which I think is missing from some posts and which is drawing what you perceive as negative attention.

Few things in life are cut and dried/black and white.

strassenwo!f

A continuation of the northside part of the metrolink towards the southwest/central area of the city would, in my opinion, have to be envisaged as an eventual two branches, because there seems to be no one location on the southside which can match the colossal numbers from Swords, the Airport, Ballymun, etc. for vehicles into and across the city.

There are two obvious corridors in that southwest/central area for an extension of the northside part of the metrolink, as I see it,

One is a Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Firhouse, Knocklyon corridor (Route 1). The second is a Harold's Cross, Kimmage, KCR, Walkinstown route (Route 2).

There are obvious pluses for Route 1, as it would reduce journey times into the city very considerably from at least 2027 (under the current metrolink timetable, by an extension to, say, Rathmines or Rathgar), and would reduce them yet further in the next phase or phases of metro extension. And it may be that such a construction would reduce pressure on the current Green line tram. From what I've read on this board, it's currently around 90 minutes to get between Knocklyon and the city. An eventual rail connection between Knocklyon and the City could reduce that to around 20-25 minutes. Very fine.

But, there are also pluses for route 2. It would, as route 1 would, provide a new rail route into the city for areas which don't currently have such a service, reducing journey times considerably. The big advantage which this branch would have, in my view, is the enormous potential for hoovering up bus passengers from the many current routes which go through Walkinstown Cross, and delivering them quickly into and out of the city. Phase 1 to Harold's Cross, then gradual development over the next, say, 5 years, to Walkinstown Cross. There is massive potential to reduce journey times considerably for very many people in the south-west of Dublin by building something like that.

Obviously, the current plan is for an expensive upgrade of the existing Green Line, which will, at best and overall, provide miniscule time savings into and out of the city to/from the southside, for those Dubliners who already have a pretty decent rail service. But, unfortunately, we're not allowed to talk here about what other cities are doing with their tram systems, and how they might be adopted in Dublin.

Both of the above southwest/central corridors would, in my opinion, eventually deliver much more to Dublin than upgrading a south-east line which has eminently solvable capacity issues.

I broadly favour route 2, as an initial phase and eventually to Walkinstown, but either of those suggested routes would massively reduce journey times into and out of the city for many people.

My question is, which of route 1 or 2 above would be better, initially, for Dublin, in the southside part of the metrolink, taking into account efficient use of the TBM.

A Rathmines/Rathgar (-Knocklyon) corridor, or A Harold's Cross (-Walkinstown) corridor?

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Obviously, the current plan is for an expensive upgrade of the existing Green Line, which will, at best and overall, provide miniscule time savings into and out of the city to/from the southside, for those Dubliners who already have a pretty decent rail service.

So you think that instead of an "expensive" upgrade of the green line, we should continue tunnelling and building new stations? And how much would this cost? How much more would it cost than the green line upgrade?

I also don't agree with you that the capacity issues are solvable, no matter how many times you say it. I prefer to defer to the experts that designed, built and ran the Luas green line, one of the highest (if not the highest) capacity light rail line in the world.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

So you think that instead of an "expensive" upgrade of the green line, we should continue tunnelling and building new stations? And how much would this cost? How much more would it cost than the green line upgrade?

Well, I broadly reckon that Dublin could get to either Harold's Cross or Rathgar, to deliver new rail connections to those areas within the current funding timeframe up to 2027, as part of any proposal for a metrolink to the southside.

CatInABox wrote: »

I also don't agree with you that the capacity issues are solvable, no matter how many times you say it. I prefer to defer to the experts that designed, built and ran the Luas green line, one of the highest (if not the highest) capacity light rail line in the world.

I am obviously constrained here, because I don't wish to get banned, and the moderators have expressed their wish not to have any discussion of what several other European cities are doing with their tram systems.

So I'm not going to initiate any discssion about what other European cities are doing with their tram/metro systems, in terms of throughput.

strassenwo!f

And, of course, and it has been mentioned on this thread already, development of a totally new rail line (or lines) to the southwest/central area of Dublin opens up a whole number of possible journeys which could be done rapidly, in some cases perhaps with a change.

Even just an extension to Harold's Cross would add around 20 (twenty) rail paths across the southside. An eventual extension to Walkinstown would add about a hundred. Any person on the Green LUAS could rapidly get to a job in Kimmage, and any person from Walkinstown could rapidly get to a job in Dundrum or Sandyford. With just one LUAS-metro change, probably at Saint Stephen's Green.

This potential would be lost to Dublin, by spending money upgrading the LUAS Green line under the current proposal to achieve potentially tiny improvements along one corridor.

D.L.R.

As long as I can get the Dart to Tara and transfer to the Metro for Airport/Ranelagh, I couldn't care less where it ends up.

But the idea of ejaculating money into a metro tunnel to a less economically active part of the city, instead of a cheap metro upgrade of the green, is so utterly moronic it makes me question the mental health of this country's citizenry.

The NTA's apparent inability to slap down this hairbrained nonsense illustrates how the state's transport planning is just as inefficient and crap as the transport network itself.

This country hasn't got a bog.

tom1ie

D.L.R. wrote: »

As long as I can get the Dart to Tara and transfer to the Metro for Airport/Ranelagh, I couldn't care less where it ends up.

But the idea of ejaculating money into a metro tunnel to a less economically active part of the city, instead of a cheap metro upgrade of the green, is so utterly moronic it makes me question the mental health of this country's citizenry.

The NTA's apparent inability to slap down this hairbrained nonsense illustrates how the state's transport planning is just as inefficient and crap as the transport network itself.

This country hasn't got a bog.

So what about delivering quality public transport infrastructure to citizens of this city who pay tax which in turn pays for the very transport projects we are talking about?
The “economic activity” of the area is only one part of the decision, not the be all and end all.

D14Rugby

D.L.R. wrote: »

As long as I can get the Dart to Tara and transfer to the Metro for Airport/Ranelagh, I couldn't care less where it ends up.

But the idea of ejaculating money into a metro tunnel to a less economically active part of the city, instead of a cheap metro upgrade of the green, is so utterly moronic it makes me question the mental health of this country's citizenry.

The NTA's apparent inability to slap down this hairbrained nonsense illustrates how the state's transport planning is just as inefficient and crap as the transport network itself.

This country hasn't got a bog.

What a load of ****e. "As long as I can get where I need to go screw everyone else... People who are from the most undeserved part of the city public transport wise and want to fix that aren't of sound mind" is what you've said there. Grow up and remove your head from your arse thanks

Sam Russell

D14Rugby wrote: »

What a load of ****e. "As long as I can get where I need to go screw everyone else... People who are from the most undeserved part of the city public transport wise and want to fix that aren't of sound mind" is what you've said there. Grow up and remove your head from your arse thanks

Mod: Can we cut out the personal abuse please.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: Can we cut out the personal abuse please.

He’s dead right though. That previous post was an f u to everyone else really.

marno21

tom1ie wrote: »

So what about delivering quality public transport infrastructure to citizens of this city who pay tax which in turn pays for the very transport projects we are talking about?
The “economic activity” of the area is only one part of the decision, not the be all and end all.

That mentality is part of the reason why we have no Metros. "**** you I want a Metro cos you have one."

The NTA have made it clear in their policy documents that they believe the best approach is a Metro on a north south spine between Swords and Sandyford between now and 2035. Aside from heavy rail and the 4 Luas extensions, they believe the best approach is to deal with the rest of the city using the bus until then.

There simply is no funding for anything other than Metro South as currently planned to be tacked onto the Metro North route.

Believe me, I know how frustrating it is seeing a clear need for a project and wanting it only to be told its years away. You in SW Dublin have it with public transport, I have it in my area with roads projects. The problem that needs looking at here isn't area 1 vs area 2, it's why no areas are getting stuff. Remember we could be here in 3 years time looking at a deferred Metrolink project wondering where we go from here.

D.L.R.

tom1ie wrote: »

He’s dead right though. That previous post was an f u to everyone else really.

How so? Explain your reasoning to me.

tom1ie

marno21 wrote: »

That mentality is part of the reason why we have no Metros. "**** you I want a Metro cos you have one."

The NTA have made it clear in their policy documents that they believe the best approach is a Metro on a north south spine between Swords and Sandyford between now and 2035. Aside from heavy rail and the 4 Luas extensions, they believe the best approach is to deal with the rest of the city using the bus until then.

There simply is no funding for anything other than Metro South as currently planned to be tacked onto the Metro North route.

Believe me, I know how frustrating it is seeing a clear need for a project and wanting it only to be told its years away. You in SW Dublin have it with public transport, I have it in my area with roads projects. The problem that needs looking at here isn't area 1 vs area 2, it's why no areas are getting stuff. Remember we could be here in 3 years time looking at a deferred Metrolink project wondering where we go from here.

I was talking about the lack of resources in the nta and maybe they should concentrate on one project at a time so that project can be delivered quickly. I believe that project should be bus connects.
Where the hell did I mention metro sw?

tom1ie

D.L.R. wrote: »

As long as I can get the Dart to Tara and transfer to the Metro for Airport/Ranelagh, I couldn't care less where it ends up.

But the idea of ejaculating money into a metro tunnel to a less economically active part of the city, instead of a cheap metro upgrade of the green, is so utterly moronic it makes me question the mental health of this country's citizenry.

The NTA's apparent inability to slap down this hairbrained nonsense illustrates how the state's transport planning is just as inefficient and crap as the transport network itself.

This country hasn't got a bog.

eh, this? basically you don’t care as long as your sorted. No?

D.L.R.

tom1ie wrote: »

eh, this? basically you don’t care as long as your sorted. No?

No, you missed my point there.

What I'm saying is I have no horse in the whole Green line upgrade vs Rathfarnham fantasy metro idea.

Read posts more carefully before you throw a wobbler.