Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

strassenwo!f

Last Stop wrote: »

So you’re entire argument is based on anecdotal evidence and not a single fact to support your argument that 30+ trams per hour is feasible?

No, it's not anecdotal. As I said, I'm not a well-travelled person, but I have been in those European cities, the ones I mentioned above, and I've seen them operating 30+ trams per hour. Helsinki, Vienna, etc. And you too can go onto the website of whatever organisation runs their trams and check their central stops, and their throughput. That's actually another thing - the LUAS travel planner is very poor compared to those cities.

Last Stop wrote: »

If you actually read my post, I was referring to your incorrect comment that there was nothing in the documentation to suggest that their change was due to local opposition.

Can you help us by providing a link to the bit where I was mistaken?

Last Stop

CatInABox wrote: »

In fairness to Strassenwo!f, the NTA/TII does indeed plan to run 30 trams per hour on the green line, in lieu of the Metrolink upgrade. You can see the report here.

It'll require turn backs at SSG and Charlemont, but it is possible.

They plan to run them between Sandyford and Charlemont only.
“Based on an assessment of the Luas Green Line it has been determined that the maximum ultimate capacity possible for Luas operations would be 55m trams, operating a frequency of 30 trams per hour between Sandyford and Charlemont”

This rules out Strassenwo!f suggestion of a Baggot St spur.
It also justifies the metrolink running as far as Charlemont when passengers can alright of Luas and board metro

Last Stop

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, it's not anecdotal. As I said, I'm not a well-travelled person, but I have been in those European cities, the ones I mentioned above, and I've seen them operating 30+ trams per hour. Helsinki, Vienna, etc. And you too can go onto the website of whatever organisation runs their trams and check their central stops, and their throughput. That's actually another thing - the LUAS travel planner is very poor compared to those cities.

1. That is anecdotal evidence because the definition of Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.
2. Please provide a link to an example of a city running more than 30+ trams per hour? If it’s as you say then it shouldn’t be that hard. Or are you just bull****ting as per usual??

Can you help us by providing a link to the bit where I was mistaken?

You said just a few posts up and this is a direct quote from you “I don't recall reading anything in their documentation that the change to their plan was because of local opposition”

citizen6

Any idea what a Luas turnback at Charlemont would look like? Would a third track be required, and could this be achieved by widening the bridge?

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

In fairness to Strassenwo!f, the NTA/TII does indeed plan to run 30 trams per hour on the green line, in lieu of the Metrolink upgrade. You can see the report here.

It'll require turn backs at SSG and Charlemont, but it is possible.

Personally speaking, I don't think it's a solution to the capacity problem, in fact I think that the predicted passenger numbers are a fantasy. We've got people passing out in the morning rush hour on the Luas, but according to the figures they're using, we haven't run into a problem yet. Pretty sure they're not even taking into account the absolutely massive Cherrywood site either, they just think that there'll be this slow, gradual increase.

Thanks.

I am of course aware that there is a problem on the Green Line, but my main concern when posting is that these problems are replicated all over Dublin.

I have often wondered whether the Green Line might be a good place to test a 'schoolchidren only' service. At peak times there's lots of kids trying to get to school, and they pack in much more efficiently than adults, sitting on each other and talking about what's going to happen that day, etc. They don't want to be with adults, and adults broadly don't want to be with them. Maybe a service every 15 minutes for schoolchildren.

Adults don't want to be standing very close to a schoolchild, or anybody, on a crowded tram. If you could take the kids out, and put them on their own designated tram, it could make it more efficient for everybody.

LongboardPro

https://imgur.com/a/CHEUEgB

Has anybody spoken about this yet? The proposed Estuary Park-and-Ride Station on the preferred route is at "surface level" yet it's right on top of a road. What's gonna happen to that road?

Also, was there any reason given as to why the station is moved slightly South from where it was on the Emerging Preferred Route? Is it something to do with the Swords West bypass perhaps?

specialbyte

LongboardPro wrote: »

https://imgur.com/a/CHEUEgB

Has anybody spoken about this yet? The proposed Estuary Park-and-Ride Station on the preferred route is at "surface level" yet it's right on top of a road. What's gonna happen to that road?

Also, was there any reason given as to why the station is moved slightly South from where it was on the Emerging Preferred Route? Is it something to do with the Swords West bypass perhaps?

This is from section 1.3 of Appendix G of the MetroLink Preferred Route Design Development Document.

The main reasons for the choice of the preferred option are as follows:

• The preferred option will avoid direct impact to Lissenhall Bridge (National Monument);
• The design is compatible with the Swords Western Distributor Road (SWDR) whilst maintaining MetroLink requirements for an integrated station at this location; it retains an associated multi-storey P&R building, similar to the EPR proposal, adjacent to the station;
• The intention to locate the depot at Dardistown removes the need for additional railway connection works and land-take in this area; and
• The revised proposals at this location also mitigate the impact on an existing house and farm and overall property impacts associated with the preferred route are less when compared to the EPR.

In the somewhat related Appendix C of the same report contains why the depot was moved from Estuary to just north of the M50 at Daridstown.

The Final County Council submission on the Emerging Preferred Route actually suggested pretty significant station location changes in this area. They wanted Estuary moved south and another new station situated further north in the middle of proposed development lands there. Here's an extract from the Fingal County Council submission:

a) Integrate with land-use policy:

• The proposed depot buildings as shown in Appendix B 'Estuary Depot' (Lissenhall future development lands) should be located north of any proposed MetroLink station servicing the centre of these lands, closer the north boundary of the ME [Metro Economic Corridor] zoned land bank, adjacent to the proposed Swords Western Ring Road (SWRR) and further west from the M1
• Estuary station should be relocated south of the Lissenhall Bridge to a similar location approved by An Bord Pleanala (ABP) under the approved rail order. This station location will serve a very large catchment area, which will be increased significantly with the development of the following ME zoned lands, which are subject to Masterplans.

CatInABox

LongboardPro wrote: »

https://imgur.com/a/CHEUEgB

Has anybody spoken about this yet? The proposed Estuary Park-and-Ride Station on the preferred route is at "surface level" yet it's right on top of a road. What's gonna happen to that road?

Also, was there any reason given as to why the station is moved slightly South from where it was on the Emerging Preferred Route? Is it something to do with the Swords West bypass perhaps?

The road will probably be rerouted, there'll need to be extensive road works there anyway, to deal with all the cars from the park and ride. I wouldn't be surprised to see that area look very different post Metrolink opening, and sure as hell developers are already looking at all that land around there.


A more interesting question is what will happen with the Ballymun road during the construction of the station. Between the actual station construction, and the large work area for Metrolink beside it, extensive diversions will be needed there. I wonder if the traffic management plan is going to be one of the local consultations that they're planning on running.

cgcsb

While other tram systems have 40 trams an hour, none of them are operating trams nearly as long as luas trams. And the reason they don't have such long trams is because their tram systems are serving central areas and inner suburbs only. All these cities have extensive heavy rail and metro systems that do the heavy lifting in terms of capacity. We're too cheap for that which is why we have on street trams going to the Kildare and Wicklow borders.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You are saying that what I said in my post was entirely false, and you are also accusing me of lying, so I will be expecting some documentation to show that you can back up what you say. I think a reasonable time should be within the next fortnight, that is, until the end of this month.

30 trams per hour is not achievable without infrastructural change:
https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_Green_Line_Future_Demand_Capacity_Intervention.pdf

Achieving a frequency of 30 trams per hour while maintaining operational reliability and efficiency would require, at a minimum, additional tram turn back facilities at St. Stephen’s Green and Charlemont, adjustment of signal priority at Dunville Avenue / Beechwood Road and grade separation of the Luas crossing at St Raphaela’s Road.

Regarding the massive changes wrought by the sewer main:

https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_PR_Design_Development.pdf (page 22)

The Preferred Route proposals for Charlemont Station both amend the depth and adjust the station box size and layout compared to the EPR. The tunnel approach to the station from the north has been lowered to pass safely under the Grand Canal and the major combined sewer running under Grand Parade. The station box depth has been increased to suit this revised tunnel alignment.

This, naturally, makes the previously preferred tunnel tie-in location impossible, due to gradient limitations. Which pushes the tunnel tie-in south of Charlemont, which makes it a multi-year rather than multi-month closure. Which is why it gets deferred. The info is all there if you bothered to look for it - AND it all got repeated here constantly over the last year too.

https://www.metrolink.ie/assets/downloads/MetroLink_PR_Design_Development.pdf (Appendix O, Pages 9-10)

The lowered tunnel and rail alignment to pass under the sewer also mean that the subsequent southern tie-in envisaged to the LUAS Green Line cannot now be undertaken in the same way as envisaged in the EPR study, as the gradients to achieve the same tie-in location as proposed at Ranelagh would be too steep. Therefore, further tunneling southwards to provide potential for a future tie-in nearer Beechwood will be required

Saying you were lying might have been incorrect, but the alternative is that you’re *deeply* ignorant about the details of the project that you constantly try to redesign on this forum.

salmocab

cgcsb wrote: »

While other tram systems have 40 trams an hour, none of them are operating trams nearly as long as luas trams. And the reason they don't have such long trams is because their tram systems are serving central areas and inner suburbs only. All these cities have extensive heavy rail and metro systems that do the heavy lifting in terms of capacity. We're too cheap for that which is why we have on street trams going to the Kildare and Wicklow borders.

I get on at harcourt going south so effectively the last stop of the city Center section and it’s not unusual at 7pm when I use it for trams to be bunched right up. 2 minutes headway through the middle must be nigh impossible with our set up. Maybe with some work on crossings from Charlemont to Sandyford it would be doable but that would also realistically require the metro at Charlemont.

tom1ie

CatInABox wrote: »

Ah, sorry, none of that was directed at you! Absolutely none! It was instead aimed at those who are constantly posting in here about how it'll never be built, and I don't consider you to be one of those people at all.

You're right about ignoring it of course, it's what I do, there's no engaging with it, as I said, it's pointless. I'd question the point of posting it in the first place though. Why tell everyone over and over that it'll never get built? It's all that some people post. I don't get it.

Fair play cat I was probably being a pit precious there tbh!!
Anyway I hope the fcuking thing gets built and I think it will due to the gp getting into government (as part of an ff fg gp coalition) and them putting pressure on the big two to get it done.
However I do think it’ll be the metro north section that gets built but Eamon will Still be pulling out the crayons.
Not necessarily a bad thing if we've an extra 10billion!!

Idbatterim

tom1ie wrote: »

Fair play cat I was probably being a pit precious there tbh!!
Anyway I hope the fcuking thing gets built and I think it will due to the gp getting into government (as part of an ff fg gp coalition) and them putting pressure on the big two to get it done.
However I do think it’ll be the metro north section that gets built but Eamon will Still be pulling out the crayons.
Not necessarily a bad thing if we've an extra 10billion!!

If SF dont get in, I see it going ahead, because people are so angry with so many areas, including transport, that FFG are simply going to have to go ahead with everything they can now asap, as its the low hanging fruit. If they do this, they will likely deflate the SF baloon a bit, if they dont...

I dont know what SF getting in, would do to the project, too many permutations...

Idbatterim

MJohnston wrote: »

Sadly I think that if the closure of a single street in Ranelagh was enough to form an entire group seemingly dedicated to ensuring the whole thing never goes ahead, then the CPO of a school and more importantly in Ranelagh, tennis courts is going to be wrapped up in legal complaints forever.

its going to be WAY WAY harded to start trying to justify pleasing a few local nimbies, when the masses are getting angry and the establishment are losing power over inaction...

Zebra3

Idbatterim wrote: »

If SF dont get in, I see it going ahead, because people are so angry with so many areas, including transport, that FFG are simply going to have to go ahead with everything they can now asap, as its the low hanging fruit. If they do this, they will likely deflate the SF baloon a bit, if they dont...

I dont know what SF getting in, would do to the project, too many permutations...

Doesn't look like SF will be in the next government.

Marcusm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thanks.

I am of course aware that there is a problem on the Green Line, but my main concern when posting is that these problems are replicated all over Dublin.

I have often wondered whether the Green Line might be a good place to test a 'schoolchidren only' service. At peak times there's lots of kids trying to get to school, and they pack in much more efficiently than adults, sitting on each other and talking about what's going to happen that day, etc. They don't want to be with adults, and adults broadly don't want to be with them. Maybe a service every 15 minutes for schoolchildren.

Adults don't want to be standing very close to a schoolchild, or anybody, on a crowded tram. If you could take the kids out, and put them on their own designated tram, it could make it more efficient for everybody.

Jesus, you clearly don’t go on the green line at rush hour with school kids and stuff dents putting sportsbags on the ground as trip hazards, congregating around dame taking up the space of 3 each and then acting as the sulky teenagers that they are when asked to bunch up or be considerate! I’m speaking of 8-845.

Last Stop

citizen6 wrote: »

Any idea what a Luas turnback at Charlemont would look like? Would a third track be required, and could this be achieved by widening the bridge?

It would have to be a 3rd track to accommodate that frequency. This would likely involve widening the bridge and turning one of the existing platforms into an island platform like that at Heuston.

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

While other tram systems have 40 trams an hour, none of them are operating trams nearly as long as luas trams. And the reason they don't have such long trams is because their tram systems are serving central areas and inner suburbs only. All these cities have extensive heavy rail and metro systems that do the heavy lifting in terms of capacity. We're too cheap for that which is why we have on street trams going to the Kildare and Wicklow borders.

While I agree with the underlying reasoning behind your post, we have to stop thinking of Luas as a traditional tram. It’s more akin to a light metro.
This type of system is ideally suited to they majority of corridors in Dublin given the size and density. It shoud however be supported by a series of heavy rail lines and the full Metrolink to Sandyford.

D.L.R.

Last Stop wrote: »

While I agree with the underlying reasoning behind your post, we have to stop thinking of Luas as a traditional tram. It’s more akin to a light metro.
This type of system is ideally suited to they majority of corridors in Dublin given the size and density. It shoud however be supported by a series of heavy rail lines and the full Metrolink to Sandyford.

Its definitely not a light metro. You'd need to dive under the city to call it that. The green line is a sort of messy hybrid line, but that's about it.

I think the people of Dublin were sold a pup with the luas to be honest, as it was promoted as a "light metro" type system, but its closer to a bog standard tram in most respects.

Its a deeply unimpressive system.

MJohnston

It’s a fairly hybrid system imo. Out in the suburbs, it definitely acts more like a light Metro, like London’s DLR or the Muni in San Francisco. Then, during on-street sections, it’s much more tram-like.

It can be both!

I actually think there’s a near-future (ie. once the Metrolink is up and running) case for looking into the viability of Charlemont to Sandyford running as a fully separate, high frequency LUAS, with a Finglas to Harcourt line running on its own.

Closing Dunville, St Raphaela’s and the other minor crossings won’t really cause much more than a few weeks of line closures, but it might be able to drastically improve running capacity.

Podge_irl

cgcsb wrote: »

While other tram systems have 40 trams an hour, none of them are operating trams nearly as long as luas trams. And the reason they don't have such long trams is because their tram systems are serving central areas and inner suburbs only. All these cities have extensive heavy rail and metro systems that do the heavy lifting in terms of capacity. We're too cheap for that which is why we have on street trams going to the Kildare and Wicklow borders.

None of them are operating at 40 trams on hour for an entire line, which is the more relevant point. When certain sections have increased frequency where multiple lines meet up issues such as bunching are far less important as the trams go their separate ways again.

Last Stop

D.L.R. wrote: »

Its definitely not a light metro. You'd need to dive under the city to call it that. The green line is a sort of messy hybrid line, but that's about it.

I think the people of Dublin were sold a pup with the luas to be honest, as it was promoted as a "light metro" type system, but its closer to a bog standard tram in most respects.

Its a deeply unimpressive system.

If it dived under the city, I’d call it a metro.
A light metro would be the Luas with roughly 20% of each line on street running and the rest reasonably if not fully segregated.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we keep Luas above ground and on other threads. This thread is for Metrolink - Swords to Charlemont. (Well Estuary counts as well).

There are plenty of other threads for Luas, Dart, etc.

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

2 tenders out in the last week

MetroLink Operations Advisor

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=151460&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

MetroLink Concept Architect

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=151684&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

Operations Advisor contract awarded to SNC Lavalin

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/227656

Dats me

marno21 wrote: »

Operations Advisor contract awarded to SNC Lavalin

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/227656

Never heard of them?

D.L.R.

Last Stop wrote: »

If it dived under the city, I’d call it a metro.
A light metro would be the Luas with roughly 20% of each line on street running and the rest reasonably if not fully segregated.

Light metro for me is a segregated light rail system, such as in Porto, Hannover, Brussels, Copenhagen, Newcastle, London DLR, etc. Bit of a stretch putting luas in the same category tbh.

Luas is closer to Edinburgh trams, Manchester Metrolink, Nice tramway or Portland Max.

Metrolink will be light metro though, if this country ever gets the finger out that is.

Sligo eye

Dats me wrote: »

Never heard of them?

Big contracting company in the railway industry

annfield1978

Sligo eye wrote: »

Big contracting company in the railway industry

Canadian Company, bought Atkins recently

Significant controversy in Canada - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin_affair

yermanoffthetv

https://www.railwaygazette.com/projects-and-planning/dublin-automated-metro-operations-consultant-appointed/55865.article

More consultants brought in, SNC-Lavalin as operations advisors. Full automation looks like the road they are head down which is nice.

yermanoffthetv

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

https://www.railwaygazette.com/projects-and-planning/dublin-automated-metro-operations-consultant-appointed/55865.article

More consultants brought in, SNC-Lavalin as operations advisors. Full automation looks like the road they are head down which is nice.

Full automation? So will add 10 years to deployment.