Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

12467…99

Comments

  • #152
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »
    Can anyone explain to me why the RPA decided to route southbound trams down Marlborough Street and D'Olier Street? Is there a capacity problem on OCS and Westmorland Street?

    The RPA seem to think so, see posts further up the thread referring to Dublin Bus and their tuppence in the matter.

    Dublin Bus would have plenty of room with 1 lane each way and a few laybys for bus stops, that's my own view.


  • #153
    GizAGoOfYerGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭GizAGoOfYerGee


    sdonn wrote: »
    The RPA seem to think so, see posts further up the thread referring to Dublin Bus and their tuppence in the matter.

    Dublin Bus would have plenty of room with 1 lane each way and a few laybys for bus stops, that's my own view.

    Thanks sdonn. I did read the entire thread, but I didn't come to the conclusion that the route change was entirely because of objections by Dublin Bus.

    Is there any official statement from the RPA for this route choice? I scoured through many of the RPA's PDFs, forums threads and news articles, but I couldn't find any solid reason for this seemingly unnecessary route change.

    If Dublin Bus are indeed the sole reason for this, I hope it doesn't set a precedent for future Luas projects in the Capital.

    A Dublin Transport Authority needed, no?


  • #154
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    eia340600 wrote: »
    As someone who's most used forms of transport are the 65/b and the LUAS red, I can honestly say that the LUAS beats the bus every time..I actually find it easier to get a luas to tallaght and then change to a 65/b or a 50 to complete my journey.However, as you siad, they have completly different routes and are only comparable for the begining and final part of their journeys'.

    Well as someone who commuted to Tallaght every morning for several years I'd beg to differ - the bus was always out there in about 35 minutes which was certainly faster than the LUAS.


  • #155
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    A poster on archiseek posted this idea and I think it's great. Wondering if there was a reason they didn't use this in the first place? Obviously a price issue.
    Should we buy the Bordeaux-style ground level power supply instead of overhead catenary? The French seem to have had teething problems but maybe they're resolved now.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply

    Last thing we need is a load more poles.

    Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?


  • #156
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,716 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    OisinT wrote: »
    A poster on archiseek posted this idea and I think it's great. Wondering if there was a reason they didn't use this in the first place? Obviously a price issue.



    Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?

    Would this have existing when the Luas was first built ????


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    OisinT wrote: »
    Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?

    I presume they looked at it when the tram lines were originally being built and ruled it out because the technology was unreliable. To change to it now would mean either having two different types of stock or retrofitting it to the existing stock.


  • #158
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »
    A Dublin Transport Authority needed, no?

    We'll have to make do with the national transport authority for the moment.


  • #159
    eia340600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭eia340600


    OisinT wrote: »
    Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?

    They could implement it now..Trams in Bordeaux run under overhead wires and only use grounf level supply in the city centre..The LUAS trams would have to be retrofitted with some equipment though..

    Alternatively, Nice use batteries in their trams that allow them to run through parts of the city center, before charging their batteries on the outer sections of the lines that have overhead wires.

    Both innovations could be used in Dublin with some equipment added to trams.


  • #160
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Any news on this project, or has it been effectively shelved for now?


  • #161
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,581 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    eia340600 wrote: »
    They could implement it now..Trams in Bordeaux run under overhead wires and only use grounf level supply in the city centre..The LUAS trams would have to be retrofitted with some equipment though..

    Alternatively, Nice use batteries in their trams that allow them to run through parts of the city center, before charging their batteries on the outer sections of the lines that have overhead wires.

    Both innovations could be used in Dublin with some equipment added to trams.

    Its horrendously expensive to install, to fit to trams and rather unreliable.

    Batteries, while we KNOW work fine as an idea (seeing as one of it not the first implementation was done on the Harcourt Street line!) would be impossible to fit without losing passenger capacity, particularly as the 5000 series are fully low floor.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    The arguement against overhead is very weak. It's a city - you expect to see the infrastructure that makes a city work on the streets. All these buildings had tram cables in front of them in the early part of the 20th century. O'Connell St. has a very modern streetscape. Tram infrastructure would not be out of place. You barely notice the cables on Abbey St. or Harcourt St.

    As for the split routing - I don't see a problem. It opens up more of the city to tram transport and is quite common in other cities.


  • #163
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    MYOB wrote: »
    Its horrendously expensive to install, to fit to trams and rather unreliable.
    Such a terrible technology it's going to be used in the entire Dubai Citadis install.


  • #164
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Dubai, where money seems to grow on trees. Well, palm trees.


  • #165
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    BrianD wrote: »
    The arguement against overhead is very weak. It's a city - you expect to see the infrastructure that makes a city work on the streets. All these buildings had tram cables in front of them in the early part of the 20th century. O'Connell St. has a very modern streetscape. Tram infrastructure would not be out of place. You barely notice the cables on Abbey St. or Harcourt St.

    I agree, some people are just too precious about these things.
    BrianD wrote: »
    As for the split routing - I don't see a problem. It opens up more of the city to tram transport and is quite common in other cities.

    The problem with the split routing, is that it serves no useful purpose, will cost more, and will be slower. The reason you give seems more of an afterthought to justify the selection.

    Loops in other cities are usually necessary and small. In our case we have O'Connell St sitting there, a street literally built to take tram lines, but no, theres a "better option". You have to wonder.

    Its all politics of course. The one and only reason for the loop is Dublin Bus. Simple as that.


  • #166
    RobAMerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,863 ✭✭✭RobAMerc


    wouldn't something like whats proposed for the LUAS Blue line not be a much cheaper option ? http://www.blueline.ie/

    Ok, I mean it means the users would have to change from Luas to Bluas at the green, but would that be so bad ?

    I mean this could be build in maybe 1/4 of the time and surely sooo much cheaper than a proper light rail system ?

    We need it now - we've 0 cash now.


  • #167
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Just to point out that the Blue Line has nothing to do with Luas or the RPA.


  • #168
    donvito99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Is a new bridge across the Liffey part of the BXD plan? It seems ridiculously unnecessary this split routing lark.

    What i would say to the RPA (and DCC, DoT, DTA? etc) is have some balls and if necessary, bank on closing or partially closing some streets to traffic. (College Green is proposed, unofficially of course to be pedestrianised). Not only would that lead to a better cityscape and a better environment for the rightful owners of this city, pedestrians, but trams would run much more quickly and simply through central dublin.

    Infact, I think split routing could do a tremenduous amount of damage.


  • #169
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Aard wrote: »
    Dubai, where money seems to grow on trees. Well, palm trees.
    My point being - if they're spending that kind of money (and fully enclosed stations too - not sure how that will work) the tech has to work.


  • #170
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    dowlingm wrote: »
    My point being - if they're spending that kind of money (and fully enclosed stations too - not sure how that will work) the tech has to work.

    Also, as they invest in it, the technology should improve with time.


  • #171
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    OisinT wrote: »
    Any news on this project, or has it been effectively shelved for now?

    A new inspector has been appointed by ABP and a hearing is expected in the next few months.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Its horrendously expensive to install, to fit to trams and rather unreliable.

    Batteries, while we KNOW work fine as an idea (seeing as one of it not the first implementation was done on the Harcourt Street line!) would be impossible to fit without losing passenger capacity, particularly as the 5000 series are fully low floor.
    Actually, the batteries are often roof mounted.
    RobAMerc wrote: »
    wouldn't something like whats proposed for the LUAS Blue line not be a much cheaper option ? http://www.blueline.ie/

    Ok, I mean it means the users would have to change from Luas to Bluas at the green, but would that be so bad ?
    Part of the point is to not to have to change. Of course, the Blue Line is just bus based and limited to the number of people you can fit in a bus.
    donvito99 wrote: »
    Is a new bridge across the Liffey part of the BXD plan?
    The bridge is needed anyway to reduce the amount of right-turning traffic at O'Connell Bridge. While that could be achieved with a simple ban, it would be harsh on quite a few bus routes.
    dowlingm wrote: »
    fully enclosed stations too - not sure how that will work
    Sliding doors for the trains? Its because of the need for air conditioning.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    RobAMerc wrote: »
    wouldn't something like whats proposed for the LUAS Blue line not be a much cheaper option ? http://www.blueline.ie/

    Ok, I mean it means the users would have to change from Luas to Bluas at the green, but would that be so bad ?
    I would build BX if only for the ability to have interdepot moves without resorting to low loaders but also to allow Heuston-Cherrywood direct service. Use bendybuses for Line D by all means - better than the local element bashing up the LUAS stops the way they do Broombridge.

    [Edit - "Blue Line" is not an RPA project last I heard]


  • #173
    Telchak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 889 ✭✭✭Telchak


    dowlingm wrote: »
    better than the local element bashing up the LUAS stops the way they do Broombridge.

    Broombridge station gets detroyed because it feels like an industrial wasteland. The Luas stop and depot will take up a significant part of the empty area around it, and derelict factories will probably eventually be rezoned for apartments (long into the future, I know). It should make the area safer and more open.


  • #174
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    I agree, some people are just too precious about these things.



    The problem with the split routing, is that it serves no useful purpose, will cost more, and will be slower. The reason you give seems more of an afterthought to justify the selection.

    Loops in other cities are usually necessary and small. In our case we have O'Connell St sitting there, a street literally built to take tram lines, but no, theres a "better option". You have to wonder.

    Its all politics of course. The one and only reason for the loop is Dublin Bus. Simple as that.

    I'm not justifying it but looking at the opportunity it may provide. Obviously it's not just the single line running but also the additional bridge. I'm surprised that DCC would be happy with the extra "visual clutter" that the bridge would cause on the river never mind the building cost.

    If the split line is to ahead would there be any sense of also creating a 'loop' out of the two tracks allowing a city centre circular route to operate. Not unlike the circle line in Melbourne.


  • #175
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    I was recently in Oberhausen (Germany) where they have tram lines all over the city. Buses use these (and the stations too), even on elevated parts. Why is this not the case with the Luas?


  • #176
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    BrianD wrote: »
    I'm not justifying it but looking at the opportunity it may provide. Obviously it's not just the single line running but also the additional bridge. I'm surprised that DCC would be happy with the extra "visual clutter" that the bridge would cause on the river never mind the building cost.
    The council are building the bridge and already have permission.
    If the split line is to ahead would there be any sense of also creating a 'loop' out of the two tracks allowing a city centre circular route to operate. Not unlike the circle line in Melbourne.
    Not really, the loop is too small.


  • #177
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    The bridge is needed for Hawking street, even if luas isn't built.


  • #178
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,581 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Victor wrote: »
    Actually, the batteries are often roof mounted.

    Would mean that said trams couldn't be used on the Red line past Rialto. There's minimal headroom at Suir Road. Dunno what the headroom is like on the tunnel on the Green like though.


  • #179
    eia340600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭eia340600


    MYOB wrote: »
    Would mean that said trams couldn't be used on the Red line past Rialto. There's minimal headroom at Suir Road.

    If there's enough room for a pantograph there's enough room for a battery.
    :p


  • #180
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Looks like the Luas Interconnector might go ahead. :eek:
    It has been assumed in the RPA multi-modal transport model that bus speeds will decrease and journey times will increase on certain bus routes that parallel Luas Line BXD. The speeds of buses running along Luas Line BXD between O‟Connell St and St Stephen‟s Green have been reduced to reflect the decrease in road space resulting from scheme implementation and increased congestion on these parallel routes
    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/line_bxd_business_case.pdf

    You could overtake the Luas Interconnector by commuting on Shank's Mare.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    mgmt wrote: »
    You could overtake the Luas Interconnector by commuting on Shank's Mare.
    I reckon it will end up looking suspiciously like the SouthSide aka The Roysh Roide" Interconnector by the time it is finished.

    If Leo really cocks up it will end up built on the south side and all :)


  • #182
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭gjim


    The route F option is convoluted, unnecessary and costly.

    The split line "solution", by the RPA's own estimates is going to add 70% to the cost of extending the green line to Parnell Square over the simple and direct route A (straight up Westmoreland St and O'Connell St. - two streets almost designed for trams - this should also allow re-routing many of the DB routes away from the O'Connell St axis).

    I would rather they used the money to do a version of route A which was 70% longer.

    I would also prefer if they re-thought the whole idea of using the old Broadstone cutting to get to Broombridge. I don't see the point since most of it runs through very low density housing containing an aging population and the billion euro DIT campus is simply not going to happen in this generation. They should be aiming to serve existing population centres like Phibsboro - for example by going in a virtual straight line up North Frederick St, Blessington and Berkeley St.

    If an interconnection with commuter heavy rail is required then look at connecting at a new commuter station somewhere around Guns Cross. This would be much shorter and useful than what the RPA is proposing.


  • #183
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    I think the controversy over the loop routing is a storm in a teacup. The loop routing is under 300m longer than the direct route, and only in one direction. Hardly enough to make a noticeable difference in travel time compared to delays crossing city centre junctions.

    Having a loop in the centre of the city with connections to the red line also makes it easier to terminate trams in the city if there is a closure on any other tram line, as trams can just run around the loop and return. The increased cost is an issue, but it will probably be balanced out by less need to work on the redeveloped O'Connell street, and if the new bridge is being installed anyway, that removes a great deal of the cost advantage of the direct route. Although, at the moment, the connections planned from the red line to the loop are not good enough.

    Also, on the suggestion of sending the tram on the street through Phibsboro to Guns junction, instead of the old train alignment, that is a terrible idea. It's not practical to send a tram along those streets - there is not space for bus lanes all along the route, and car traffic is very congested at peak. The broadstone alignment is a very short walk from all the major places on the route: Dalymount, the shopping centre, and the village. Most of the housing there is occupied by elderly residents, but their large townhouses are being replaced by flats, at a high density. Even if the new DIT campus does not go ahead in Grangegorman (and it's not cancelled yet), the site is going to be developed sooner or later.


  • #184
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭gjim


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    The increased cost is an issue, but it will probably be balanced out by less need to work on the redeveloped O'Connell street, and if the new bridge is being installed anyway, that removes a great deal of the cost advantage of the direct route.
    Unless you have some proof that these factors were not taken into account, then this is just handwaving. The estimates have been published - the RPA itself says that route F will cost 65% more than route A (I just checked the document on their website). Why would the RPA deliberately overstate the costs of their preferred route?

    And the increased cost is not just "an issue" - it is THE ISSUE. Most of T21 has been binned because of a lack of money; spending an extra 70% on a project like this when the money could be used on something which would actually deliver utility (like an extension to Phibsboro) is not a "storm in a teacup".

    As for your claims about the old alignment, it's selection was justified by a financial model which is dead - i.e. extend the Luas into areas where new apartments can be built and subsequently levy the developers of the new apartments. Suggesting that old Cabra will be redeveloped with gleaming high density apartment buildings might have worked as a justification for this route 4 years ago - these days it's a bad joke.

    Hopefully sanity will now prevail and capital intensive public transport development will be based on delivering utility to the commuters of Dublin and not on a circular "build it and they will come, thus justifying building it" argument.

    As for the new bridge, it will not be built unless the Luas goes over it. It has been the wet dream of the traffic engineers in DCC for more than a decade but could never be justified. Route F is the result of horse trading; DCC dropped it's strenuous objections to BX once the RPA found some way to incorporate a need for a new bridge at Hawkins St. The result is this expensive dog's dinner of a route.


  • #185
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Using Broadstone is a good idea -- grade seperation to Finglas. I'm all for, however, cutting down on expense of on-street trams (i.e. route F). Lord knows they'll probably be ripped up in the not too distant future anyway!


  • #186
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    I think the controversy over the loop routing is a storm in a teacup.

    I disagree, its possibly the worst routing call made by the RPA, and that's saying a lot. Completely unnecessary, and it messes up O'Connell St just for good measure.

    And what do we get in return? A slower journey and a bigger bill! Retarded isn't the word...


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    gjim wrote: »
    And the increased cost is not just "an issue" - it is THE ISSUE. Most of T21 has been binned because of a lack of money; spending an extra 70% on a project like this when the money could be used on something which would actually deliver utility (like an extension to Phibsboro) is not a "storm in a teacup".
    But that 70% (I though it was 65% a moment ago) is only on a small section. How much of that extra is because of the bridge? The bridge will remove most right-turn movements from O'Connell Bridge and give pedestrians better options to cross at both bridges.


  • #188
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭gjim


    Victor wrote: »
    But that 70% (I though it was 65% a moment ago) is only on a small section. How much of that extra is because of the bridge? The bridge will remove most right-turn movements from O'Connell Bridge and give pedestrians better options to cross at both bridges.
    It's for the BX section which is the section attracting the criticism. Even it is doubtful, while without the massive Grangegorman development, the D section is about as likely to be built as Metro West.

    The only details made available by the RPA of the cost estimates for the various options are given in percentages above option A rounded to 5%. I'd like to refer you to the original estimates (which provided actual construction costs) but they've "disappeared" from the RPA website; at the time the excess was closer to 70% from what I recall but like I said the figures are not available.

    I presume your question regarding the proportion of the cost which can be attributed to the bridge is rhetorical? The extent of the information regarding costs which have been released by the RPA is insufficient to even guess what the overall cost of Option F is, never mind components of it. I'm sure you are well aware of this.


  • #189
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    It appears that the BXD line will cross the Red line at O'Connell Street and Marlborough Street. There will be a physical connection to the Red line at O'Connell Street/Marlborough Street, but this will apparently not be used for passenger travel.

    Why is this?

    It would seem advantageous to plan for the possibility of passenger services between Sandyford and the Point, between Broombridge and the Point, between Tallaght/Citywest and Broombridge (/eventually Finglas), etc., etc.

    I have a vague recollection that this has something to do with environmental impact statements, but this could be wrong. It would seem a pity for a physical connection to be planned, but not to plan for this connection to be used to facilitate a variety of passenger services.


  • #190
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    It appears that the BXD line will cross the Red line at O'Connell Street and Marlborough Street. There will be a physical connection to the Red line at O'Connell Street/Marlborough Street, but this will apparently not be used for passenger travel.

    Why is this?

    It would seem advantageous to plan for the possibility of passenger services between Sandyford and the Point, between Broombridge and the Point, between Tallaght/Citywest and Broombridge (/eventually Finglas), etc., etc.

    I have a vague recollection that this has something to do with environmental impact statements, but this could be wrong. It would seem a pity for a physical connection to be planned, but not to plan for this connection to be used to facilitate a variety of passenger services.


    Because it's a major complication for the operator while a minor inconvenience for the passenger to transfer


  • #191
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,716 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Because it's a major complication for the operator while a minor inconvenience for the passenger to transfer

    How ???

    Tram operators do this all around the world...


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,113 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    How ???

    Tram operators do this all around the world...

    most tram/metro systems I've been on have separate lines and where they intersect you change trams. It makes the system much easier to understand for passengers and is logistically easier for the operator.


  • #193
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Even if there was a Sandyford<>Point service, realistically the service frequency wouldn't be particularly high (especially if you want to throw Broombridge<>Point into the mix too, for example) and a lot of people would end up just taking the first tram that comes, whether that entails a transfer or not. At very most only 50% of trams would go where one wants without a transfer, but this would probably be less. People aren't gonna let a tram sail by just to avoid changing at Abbey St -- the transfer would take less time than the wait for the next one.


  • #194
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    It appears that the BXD line will cross the Red line at O'Connell Street and Marlborough Street. There will be a physical connection to the Red line at O'Connell Street/Marlborough Street, but this will apparently not be used for passenger travel.

    Why is this?

    It would seem advantageous to plan for the possibility of passenger services between Sandyford and the Point, between Broombridge and the Point, between Tallaght/Citywest and Broombridge (/eventually Finglas), etc., etc.

    I have a vague recollection that this has something to do with environmental impact statements, but this could be wrong. It would seem a pity for a physical connection to be planned, but not to plan for this connection to be used to facilitate a variety of passenger services.

    No need for it. The penny is finally dropping for those who think it's essential that the lines join. The connection will really be for engineering reasons. There was never a plan to route trams to Heuston, Tallaght or the Point. You get off and change lines like any other cities in the world. They can probably close one of the tram depots if there is a connection between both lines.


  • #195
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    loyatemu wrote: »
    most tram/metro systems I've been on have separate lines and where they intersect you change trams. It makes the system much easier to understand for passengers and is logistically easier for the operator.

    My experience of tram systems is mostly gleaned from Germany and Poland, where most sections of the various networks are used by multiple lines. Dresden would be a nice example of this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresdner_Verkehrsbetriebe


  • #196
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Crossings used only for operational reasons exist all over Berlin. Get off the tram, walk around corner and wait for the other one.

    If both routes are frequent and reliable (easier to maintain with single route per line) then changing is no problem.


  • #197
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,935 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Operationally interworking the two lines was never in the proposal - that's been discussed on boards repeatedly.

    I don't know how this is suddenly big news to people?


  • #198
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,935 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    BrianD wrote: »
    No need for it. The penny is finally dropping for those who think it's essential that the lines join. The connection will really be for engineering reasons. There was never a plan to route trams to Heuston, Tallaght or the Point. You get off and change lines like any other cities in the world. They can probably close one of the tram depots if there is a connection between both lines.

    I would very much doubt either depot will be closed.

    For example, were Sandyford to close the additional travel time that would be taken for empty trams to get from Red Cow to either Brides Glen or Sandyford to start the day and at the end would be nonsensical and would result in additional unnecessary labour costs.


  • #199
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Operationally interworking the two lines was never in the proposal - that's been discussed on boards repeatedly.

    I don't know how this is suddenly big news to people?

    Oh it's not news. I was just trying to get a reminder as to why connecting the two lines for passengers was not being done.

    You say that it was never in the proposal, yet you still haven't explained why. It would seem sensible to envisage use of the lines in this way, even if it is not initially part of the plan. In this way, Dublin might be able to utilise the eventual network more fully, like cities like Dresden.

    It was pointed out above, by Murphaph, that crossings used only for operational reasons exist all over Berlin. Crossings used for passenger services also exist all over the city, and they seem to work fine.


  • #200
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,935 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    It may well be that from a practical perspective (in terms of driver hours etc) as an operator that it would not work out - I don't know.

    I suspect that having developed the service since it was launched they just want to keep a relatively simple network in place, i.e. Connolly-Saggart, Tallaght-Point and Cathal Brugha Street-Sandyford/Brides Glen, and therefore a consistency of service through the central areas.


  • #201
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Oh it's not news. I was just trying to get a reminder as to why connecting the two lines for passengers was not being done.

    You say that it was never in the proposal, yet you still haven't explained why. It would seem sensible to envisage use of the lines in this way, even if it is not initially part of the plan. In this way, Dublin might be able to utilise the eventual network more fully, like cities like Dresden.

    It was pointed out above, by Murphaph, that crossings used only for operational reasons exist all over Berlin. Crossings used for passenger services also exist all over the city, and they seem to work fine.

    It's been stated here by Aard. There is only 1 transfer point.
    Why wait 15 minutes for the 3rd tram Broombridge -The Point when I can get the next , walk 10 foot and jump on the next tram

    Berlin has multiple lines. It makes sense to run multiple routes on single lines as passenger might have to make multiple transfer to get where they want to be.

    When we get close to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_tramways again we can run multiple routes on single lines


  • Advertisement
Advertisement